Update II: I like this from commenter and blogger Jerry McClellan:
“You know, it is strange how so called tolerant homosexuals and their supporters want government to get out of their bedrooms, yet they want that same government to force others to not only refrain from verbally disagreeing with them but also to force them to accept their lifestyle, even by force. If you want government out of your bedrooms, then stop advertising what you do in your bedrooms in the street, on t.v. and in the classroom.”
Update (12:44): To focus the discussion a bit more, I’ll pose another question. A business seeking a license can’t refuse to serve people based on race (esp. if it does business with the government), but can that same business refuse to serve people whose lifestyles/behavior is offensive to them as Christians or violates their religious convictions?
If your answer is no, do you have a similar opinion about Muslim cab drivers who refuse to drive customers with alcohol? If pharmacists can refuse to dispense abortion pills because of religious convictions, why can’t landscaping Christians refuse to landscape on the same grounds? (No pun intended!)
More questions: An upscale restaurant may discriminate against people who aren’t wearing ties. Any restaurant may refuse to serve an unruly person. But refusing to serve a black person invites lawsuits. In that regard, can a landscaping business refuse to work for homosexuals but not blacks? Does it depend on the nature of the business?
—————————————————————————————————
Should a business have the right to refuse to work for certain people for any reason?
I say yes.
A Christian couple with a landscaping business in Houston refused to work for two cohabitating homosexuals, and, as expected, were vilified for it.
“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.”
In my experience, people who preach tolerance are the least tolerant people I’ve ever met. 
As expected, “gay activists” brought up race, equating skin color with perversion. “Imagine if it had been a black or Hispanic couple that they wouldn’t provide services to. It’s really bad,” whined one such activist. Very irritating.
On a personal note, I worked with a homosexual client. At the time I didn’t know he was a homosexual. Had I known, it wouldn’t have mattered to me. I have no problem advising a homosexual on how to improve his web site, but I wholeheartedly support these business owners’ decision not to work with them.
In fact, I believe business owners have the right to work for whomever they want and to refuse to work for anyone for any reason, including race. That’s the beauty of private enterprise.
Your opinion?
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 68 comments }
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. It should be a non-issue.
In this case I agee completely. PRIVATE enterprise means you have the right to do what you want. Others have the right to protest your choice and if enough people complain or are annoyed by your choice and boycott you, you will then have the right to go bankrupt. A great example is this nearly forgotten civil rights story (via the Instapundit a while back).
The only case where I have a problem with the idea that a private business not choose who its customers are (or what it provides them) is when the business is a governmentally regulated (quasi)monopoly. See this post at my blog for more details
There’s intolerance on both sides of the issue here. The choice to refuse service was definitely prejudicial, but anyone who’s making threats (however empty) to sodomize children has absolutely no right to be casting stones. It’s a despicable threat that will do nothing but convince these business owners that they were right not to associate with “those kinds of people”.
I’m not certain of the American laws in cases like this, but I don’t know if I’d want to make a federal case of it. Just pick another, more open-minded landscaping company, vote with your feet, and spread the word so that your straight friends do the same. Prejudice doesn’t make good business sense, and I’d find it far more satisfying to see these people experience the true consequences of their ignorance than have them forced into unwilling compliance.
FWIW, I quite agree. On these sorts of issues, I guess I’m a bit more Republitarian. So to be specific, if a business chooses not to hire homely, 50-something, balding white straight Christian polyglots — well, “private business” should mean something.
Their loss, of course.
(c;
According the article cited, Houston, where these landscapers have their business, has no law against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but the cities of Austin and Dallas do apparently have such laws. The article isn’t specific enough for me to determine the actual reach of the law in Dallas and Austin, but I’m guessing it was meant to prevent places like restaurants from refusing to serve (sell their food/service) to gay people. However, it probably covers all businesses, whether private or not.
I don’t agree with gay marriage, but I think that all people, including gay people, have the right to expect that they will be treated equally by businesses whether private or not. Isn’t it also true that this same landscape company or business cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in their hiring practices?
As a fellow entrepreneur, I have to agree that a private owned business can chose who and who not to service. You can’t force a private business to service someone. If business owners want to take it to the extreme and exclude everyone that offends them because of sexual orientation, gender or race…so be it. They probably won’t be in business for long and it’s a dumb move as a business owner, but they do have that right to go broke if they want to stand true to their principles. The gay couple needs to get over it and call another landscaping company that cares less who they sleep with as long as the check cashes.
So let’s go ahead and extend it to race, though I think there’s no analogy between protecting a particular perversion and equal treatment of races.
I was talking once with a black candidate for office. She said she favored quota’s, I said I didn’t. She told me a story of being discriminated against, and it was an upsetting story. I responded something like this:
“If I’d known you at the time, I’d've been glad to boycott that business. What’s more, I’d've been glad to protest them, to carry a sign letting everyone know they were doing business with racists, urging them not to. I’d have been happy to apply fellow-citizen, marketplace pressure on them for their stupid, racist policy. But I just don’t want the government to come in and tell private business owners who they may and may not hire. If they want to do that, let them pay all the bills — and buh-bye America.”
She wasn’t persuaded.
It’s always amazing to me that straights are always the “ignorant” ones who have to “experience the true consequences of their ignorance”. Talk about shoving a belief system down someone’s throat. Since when is a couple who clearly thought about the situation, knew they may lose business because of their decision to stand by their beliefs, “ignorant”? And why doesn’t the homosexual couple ever have to suffer the consequences of *their* behavior, which is unacceptable to a lot of people? (Note that I said unacceptable BEHAVIOR!)
As for the homosexual couple, for crying out loud, stop the whining and temper tantrums trying to force people to think like you and find another landscaper. As for the landscaping couple, I hope you have a thick skin, because you started a fight with an intolerant enemy bent on complete mind control. As you can already see, the “tolerance” crowd plays for keeps, so you better have a lot of loyal customers.
That being said, if I were the business owner, I wouldn’t give a flying fig what they did behind closed doors, as long as their check didn’t bounce. Where I would have a problem is with a client who was belligerent to me without reason or one who didn’t pay the bills.
The problem here is one that is complex and multi-layered. Private businesses are just that: private. Such enterprises allow certain privileges. Selectivity is such a privilege. Yes, they should be allowed to choose their own customers and make their own rules.
However, what if, in this instance, the private business owner is a Christian? Then the issue becomes a different and an important one. There is danger in Christians behaving in ways that condemn the sinner but not the sin, if one considers homosexuality a moral offense (which I am supposing may be the objection of the landscapers). In the scriptures, Jesus does not disassociate himself from those who broke moral and religious laws. Instead, he embraced mankind, reserving his sharpest criticism for the self-righteous. Had he not, he would have formed an exclusive religious community that would have alienated unbelievers. It was his willingness to “be in the world but not of the world” that led unbelievers to put their trust in him. Today hordes of unbelievers reject Christ because his earthly representatives have rejected them. They do not know that they are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
As a Christian, I would not embrace this business’s selectivity. Rather, I would do my job, and I would do my job well. I would allow the grace that was granted to me to reflect in my treatment of others. I would not attempt to change anyone’s sexual orientation, but I would attempt to let my life be a reflection of how God’s love has changed my own life. I would be more interested in the soul of a person than in their sexual behavior or their lawn care.
Well, the response from the homosexual couple was so hateful and over the top I wouldn’t do business with them regardless. I agree with Lashawn, it’s a privately owned business, they can choose who they want to provide services for. All the homosexual couple had to do was open the Yellow Pages and get someone else. I’m sure they are not the only landscaper in the area,and there are plenty of private businesses who specifically cater to the gay community these days. I wonder what the response would have been if it was a gay business owner refusing to provide service for a white,bible-thumping evangelical? Hmmm.
I wonder if those private business owners would have denied service to a woman that they knew had a boyfriend who spent the night at her place once a week?
Or would they have denied service to a person planning a divorce on grounds other than adultery/fornication?
And wouldn’t it be more “Christian” to befriend those gays and tell them about Jesus? Gays need the help of Jesus to overcome their sin. How are we supposed to offer them that if we refuse to do anything with them?
If the Landscaping Service is “Christian” I think they should have provided a Christian message with their service and left it up to the gays to decide how tolerant they are to The Word.
While we don’t want to go giving gays special privileges and calling it “rights”, we Christians should not be running every time we see a gay person.
I disagree with the Christian Landscapers on Christian, not legal grounds. (no pun intended)
“And wouldn’t it be more “Christian†to befriend those gays and tell them about Jesus?”
I meant to include that in my little rant. I agree. After all Jesus did hang out with thieves,prostitutes, and tax collectors and loved them. Just as He loves me,a sinner, of whom I am the chief.
In fact, I believe business owners have the right to work for whomever they want and to refuse to work for anyone for any reason, including race. That’s the beauty of private enterprise.
Do you mean “should have the right”? Since private businesses have to be licensed, I was under the impression that they don’t participate in certain types of discrimination because their licensing would be in jeopardy.
My husband and I own and operate a landscaping business. He has refused to do work for several people including a homosexual couple. Their bickering got on my husband’s nerves so he backed out of doing the job. He has also refused to do work for certain nationalities because of their abusive/combative ways of doing business. He doesn’t tell them that’s why he isn’t willing to do work for them. He just says no.
After being in business for several years, we have certain kinds of people we don’t do jobs for. You could say we profile our prospective clients. Works for us.
Sometimes wisdom has to be used to avoid unnecessary trouble. A business should have the right to choose who they work for but the trouble that comes with telling the truth to people who don’t want to hear the truth isn’t worth it. We don’t lie to people who we refuse to work for but we don’t tell them everything to do with our refusing their job.
He has also refused to do work for certain nationalities because of their abusive/combative ways of doing business.
So was this refusal the result of observing the “abusive/combative ways” of these particular individuals or was there an assumption that they would be “abusive/combative” without any evidence of it?
Interesting…and I whole-heartedly agree.
If some private business wants to withold their services from me because of my race, it is their right.
In turn, they can definitely expect me to use my right to free speech and let them know exactly how I feel about their decision to do so.
That’s the beauty of this country!
I agree with your post. If we start forcing private businesses and individuals to do things, where do we draw the line?
What happens in such cases is that there are certain people who misinterpret personal choice and freedoms as a “discriminatory” practice. As a hard working business owner with money, time and effort invested, this country (supposedly) reserves you the right to employ and serve whomever you chose.
Misinterpretation of “unwarranted” civil rights legislation has led us down this road of “indiscrimanate” accusations of racism. The 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution should be left to stand on it’s own merits. It was the latter amendments which spawned the like’s of the “true” racist’s that lurk amongst presently. Hopefully sometime in the not so distant future we can strike down the “unwarranted” amendments and begin to move our country in the right direction.
I’m not understanding where this is coming from. If you are a private business providing services to the public, you do NOT have the right to discriminate based on race. There are federal and local laws in place that do not allow this.
Thinking that businesses SHOULD have the right to discriminate is something altogether different, but the fact is that businesses don’t have the right to discriminate against race and some other things. That is an agreement each business makes when it gains its license and violating this agreement can bring about law suits and loss of that license.
People are acting as if pressure is being placed on businesses to do something that they don’t legally have to do. Wrong. Legally, businesses must service people regardless of race, ethnicity, and some other things. I’m not totally sure where sexual orientation fits in, but race, ethnicity, and gender are fairly clear-cut.
I agree with LaShawn on this one.
But to be honest the whole issue cracks me up. You see all the flap over a homosexual couple not getting service from a Private company. Yet when is the last time you heard this much controversy over an exclusive Rodeo Dr shop refusing to serve a non wealthy or non famous client? Businesses are always choosing who the provide service to the only time it seems to be an issue is when it is a protected minority.
Hasn’t everyone gone into a place of business and seen the sign, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?
The couple’s actions may be distasteful to some, but the forcing of people to serve others against their will is far worse.
What would be next? You lose the right to say who can or can’t come into your house? Sounds scary, right? Explain the difference.
its that guy with that show “sugar rush” right, when i saw his show i knew he was gay and i turned it off food network, i thought about you working for him and i figured u wouldnt
I don’t know if he’s a homosexual, and he was never a client. Even if he was, I’d sign him on.
#21 Shade, that’s my question as well. I’m as much for protecting my rights as the next person, but just exactly what are they? I did a little googling and found that discrimination laws are tricky..there are things like numbers of employees that determine whether you have to adhere, etc. I’m still not sure about the sexual orientation aspects of discrimination and i’m not a lawyer so it’s a mystery to me. There are very large privately owned companies, for example, WALMART! What’s the difference between a privately owned mom and pop landscaping business and Walmart when it comes to determining who they can or must serve?
What’s scarey to me is that judges and the courts are passing laws right and left in this country that affect every one of us and it appears that every time they do, our “individual” rights are eroded without we the people even understanding what is happening.
I don’t necessarily disagree with LaShawn’s point at all. I’m just not sure where you draw the line.
Follow up to above. CORRECTION WALMART IS NOT PRIVATELY OWNED. Bad example SORRY
Hasn’t everyone gone into a place of business and seen the sign, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone�
What does a sign have to do with law? And we all know that what those signs really mean is that they have great leeway in regards to who they choose to serve. Appropriate attire and behavior are pretty much what they are referring to. But no licensed business has the legal right to discriminate based on race and ethnicity.
It’s funny that Francis has to use an example from 1958 to show people having the legal right to discriminate. Why are there no recent examples? Because laws have changed since 1958. A business will loose its license and risk being sued today.
forcing of people to serve others against their will is far worse.
No one is forced to serve anyone against their will. If someone doesn’t want to serve a certain race or ethnicity, they don’t have to. They just have to accept the fact that they won’t be given a license to conduct business.
What would be next? You lose the right to say who can or can’t come into your house? Sounds scary, right? Explain the difference.
The difference is that your house is not a business licensed to serve the public If you conduct a business from your house, you are required by law to serve everyone equally regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender (generally), and possibly sexual orientation.
James, La Shawn has the right to deny anyone the opportunity to post here because she own’s the site. She offers an “opinion” which you can agree or disagree, yet neither you nor her will be adversely affected.
Chris in Pearland, you have the right to deny anyone entry into your house because you own it. You choose not to allow them into your home whereas some one else could or will.
There are many privately owned businesses in this country. Some offer services that are not readily available to persons with certain or particular needs. Are you both saying that persons who are capable and willing to pay for the services have no rights?
Should a privately owned hospital refuse medical attention to a critically ill person because of their race or sexual preference? Does your right not to treat my illness out-wiegh my right to live?
Should a privately owned drug company deny certain individuals life sustaining medicine because of ethnicity?
Should a privately owned gas station deny a stranded motorist service based on what type of automobile he has?
Were the privately owned lunch counters in Birmingham, Al. in the 60s’ within their rights as Americans to not offer service to blacks?
Who’s rights are really being impeded here?
All the hate, the threats of sodomizing my children, the threats of me being murdered…
But don’t anybody say that homosexuality leads to pedophilia. That would be too insensitive.
And no, I don’t think I’d work for them either. As a privately owned small business, the Christian couple in Houston has every right to decided who they will and will not associate with as it pertains to their business. More power to them. And I am so sick and tired of gay people playing the race card. God created many different people of all different colors as part of his brilliant master plan. God never made anyone gay. The two are incompatible. But than again, we all know how these people operate. They can never win in the arena of ideas without twisting the facts, so their entire movement is predicated on coercion and lies.
Follow up to above. CORRECTION WALMART IS NOT PRIVATELY OWNED. Bad example SORRY
It is too “privately” owned corporation. Its shares are public but it is not owned by the government. At least not last time I looked.
I’m not understanding where this is coming from. If you are a private business providing services to the public, you do NOT have the right to discriminate based on race.
They’re not “providing services to the public.” Consultants–landscapers, web designers, caterers, lawyers, etc–choose to pick clients with whom they will have a mutually beneficial relationship. Either side can terminate the relationship at any stage–including the initial contact–for any reason at all.
Walter Williams recently had a series of essays about how everyone discriminates, and this is a good thing.
Where this particular business went wrong was being specific. If they’d answered the request for a bid with a simple, “Thank you, but we’re not able to take you on as clients” the sensitive tolerants wouldn’t be threatening to sodomize their children. They’re guilty of bad business etiquette. Big freaking deal.
(Would you force a gay couple to hire a landscaper with Old Testament Bible verses on their website?)
PLEASE SEE THE UPDATE, everyone.
Re: comment #29, Mr. Allen: How does a landscaping company compare with a hospital? There is no constitutional right to a beautiful lawn (if there is, somebody owes me big bucks!). I agree with LaShawn.
Years ago, my husband and I were paid to sing at wedding ceremonies. We made it clear up front that due to our religious convictions, we would not sing at a wedding where one of the couple had been divorced, and we would not sing “Ave Maria” because of the lyrics. We cheerfully shared with prospective clients why we could not sanction a union which we believe is sinful, and why we would not sing a prayer that we believe to be idolatrous, since we reject the notion that Mary is the Mother of God. Not one couple ever complained. There are lots of people who can sing out there, just as there are lots of landscapers in Houston.
I don’t disagree that you should not be forced to serve those you don’t want to serve, but I do think that there are differences. When you have an upscale business, you want to attract certain clientele. It is understandable to want appropriate presentation. Likewise with poor behavior of patrons. It could affect your business. If you have religious convictions then you should not be forced to violate them. There is a legitimate reason why Christians and others oppose homosexuality and even distributing abortifacient contraceptives.
As a black person, I don’t want to be served by someone who does not want to serve me. However I think that issues of race and disabilities (for example) are a little different because they are based on pure prejudice. We all have the right to be prejudice and we all are to some extent for various reasons. As I said, I don’t think anyone should be made to do anything but blind discrimination without “reasonable” reasons seems like it could lead to blanket discrimination.
I guess I’m saying that I understand justifiable discrimination (religious reasons, attracting a certain clientele because of money or interests etc.) it is just hard for me (maybe because I’m sensitive :))to reconcile emotions based discrimination like, I won’t serve blacks or whites or the handicapped because I just don’t like them. This might sound harsh, but lets say you were robbed at gun point by a (you fill in the race)man ten times. I could understand you not wanting to serve that particular type of person. That is emotional but also justifiable and understandable.
How do you deal with issues like these?
Heather
I like to think that people are better than they are sometimes. When I first heard about this I just couldn’t believe it. Does the couple only work for Christians? I mean, do they screen their clients? Would they work for a man who had a girlfriend that he slept with regularly? Would they work for non-Christians? They weren’t being asked to promote homosexuality. They were being asked to do someone’s lawn. It’s a very different thing.
And, personally, they haven’t done much to make Christians look nicer to the gay community. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t stand by their convictions, but landscaping for a gay couple shouldn’t be a threat to a Christian’s convictions. It just seems very spiritually immature to me, and thus it makes Christians seems spiritually immature, even though the majority are not (like La Shawn, who, rightfully, had no problem working with a homosexual client).
After all, from what I read, their web site contained Bible verses and a link to an anti-gay marriage web site. The gay couple in question obviously didn’t care about their religious beliefs. They wanted a landscaper. The business should have followed suit.
Now, that was merely my personal opinion. It had nothing to do with rights. I do believe that privately owned businesses have every right to choose clients for whatever reason. They were just very foolish to send an e-mail to that client saying that they weren’t working for them specifically because they were homosexual. They had to have been expecting a backlash.
I think where the “No Blacks” went wrong under Jim Crow was that it was enforced by the law. If it was purely voluntary and a privately owned biz had such, then yeah, let them be.
The civil rights activists were right to stage protests and sit-ins because they weren’t really protesting the store so much as it was the laws that banned desegregated ‘public’ spaces.
Licenses have some bearing, particularly if it is a license to provide infrastructual services, ie transportation, emergency health care etc. Profiling for offense. NO. Profiling for danger. YES. But that criteria by nature excludes private schools, restaurants, landscapers & stores, since they are not a private solution to critical public services.
I’m all for the right of racist restaurants, stores and businesses to be as racist as they wanna be, so long as they don’t harm or threaten the target of their bigotry. If a restaurant doesn’t like your type, there’s bound to be another close by.
OTOH, taxis aren’t so ubiquitous and as long as there is a potential fare, the driver should take it. The potential for offense is not a valid reason for passing up the fare, yet if the driver feared a potential mugging, he should be well within his rights to drive on by.
Watch for the double standards as Muslims will get to discriminate against Jews & Infidels, while the Christian providers get slammed.
As for whether it’s the Christian thing, that’s up to the individual and their personal spiritual confidence and/or comfort level. The NT makes it clear that in some areas of our personal lives, it would be a sin and/or stumbling block for some to do what others can/will do.
To wit, if you are aware that eating discounted meat sold by a heathen temple would cause a weaker Christian to stumble, then don’t do it. At the same time, Christians shouldn’t be hyper-sensitive such that they take offense a what other Christians do or don’t do. Balance & perspective.
They’re not “providing services to the public.†Consultants–landscapers, web designers, caterers, lawyers, etc–choose to pick clients with whom they will have a mutually beneficial relationship. Either side can terminate the relationship at any stage–including the initial contact–for any reason at all.
They are providing services to the public. That doesn’t mean that they provide it to each and every individual. They have the right to discriminate between potential customers. Yes, it is done all of the time. Employers discriminate based on experience, criminal records, personality, qualifications, looks, etc. etc. But there are specific laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities (if they don’t affect abiltiy to perform the job), religion and national origin. A business that openly declares that it will not serve a certain ethnic group will not be licensed. If evidence shows that a particular business discriminates against customers based on race and ethnicity, that business can be penalized. Read this website:
http://www.discriminationiswrong.com/business.html
As far as sexual orientation goes, it is not nearly as protected by the law as the things mentioned above.
they have the choice to not do the job. But.. the public also has the choice to be angry and condemn them.
the tie example is a really bad analogy.
You know, it is strange how so called tolerant homosexuals and their supporters want government to get out of their bedrooms, yet they want that same government to force others to not only refrain from verbally disagreeing with them but also to force them to accept their lifestyle, even by force. If you want government out of your bedrooms, then stop advertising what you do in your bedrooms in the street, on t.v. and in the classroom.
For those of you who continue to espouse the idea of “rights” within this context of sexual behavior, you are backwards. Discrimination of sexual behavior has nothing to do with discrimination of race or ethnicity. A person is Black, White, Asain, etc. by birth, by genes, and yet, that persons skin color or ethincity doesn’t necessarily affect their behavior. A person’s sexual perversion IS a result of said person’s behavior. Therefore forcing private citizens to accept someone elses deviant behavior is lunacy.
10km asks; “How does a landscaping company compare with a hospital?”
As far as the type of service they both provide, “obviously” there is no comparison. I asked those questions because hospitals are businesses also (public and private). If you don’t wish to answer my questions, it’s you right not to! I believe the question was;
“Should a “BUSINESS” have the right to refuse to work for certain people for any reason?”
(read the essay Ms. Barber wrote, you’ll find the question about mid-ways in the post!)
My answer to the question of the Muslim cab driver is alcohol is legal in this country, so he would be wrong not to convey a paying customer. If we were to limit discriminatory practices to the nature of the business, who would decide which businesses would be allowed to discriminate and which one’s can’t?
It is my opinion that no one should discriminate against, or be denied, soley on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or physical disability.
A few years ago a Christian organization (Barnetts Creek Baptist Church) attempted to exercise their “right” to refuse race mixing a cemetary.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n13_v113/ai_18226920
I agree with Radish and Kate here in their expression of having better business etiquette on the part of landscapers. We practice this all the time in life by withholding our not too kind thoughts and blurting them out like a child does. It’s one thing to stand upon principles and quite another to invite trouble.
They can choose not to work with anyone like business owner Julie stated above about certain nationalities, but they don’t have to tell the people who requested their service why. I know an auto shop owner who picks and choses his clients based on what he senses about them, whether they are going to nickel and dime him over part prices (One of his lines is “dude, you are driving the wrong car”), question his assessment of their car’s symptoms, etc. Sometimes he just flat out tells them “we don’t work on that model anymore.” He is always polite but firm. That shop has been in business for over 25 years and has multitudes of loyal customers because of their fairness and competance so the method works.
I think we need to be tactful. But like Kate pointed out, we as Christians should not isolate ourselves and reach out to the world. We are salt and light and if we never associate with anyone outside of our circle of faith, then how will anyone know the gospel? Better to use the opportunity to share your faith by doing a terrific job!
In fact, I believe business owners have the right to work for whomever they want and to refuse to work for anyone for any reason, including race. That’s the beauty of private enterprise.
Your opinion?
Handicapped? Elderly? How far down that path do you want to go?
On the one hand, I sympathize and — to a large extent — agree with those who argue that the free market should take care of those who wish to discriminate.
But I don’t want to open the phone book one day, and see a bunch of ads that have writing at the bottom saying “We only serve [insert demographic group here]” or “No [insert demographic group] allowed”. That’s not a picture of America that I welcome.
So I’m for allowing people to have the “right” to discriminate — but up to a point. It’s not long ago in this nation’s history when gay people couldn’t get dental services (the beginning of the AIDS scare) and, even worse, when black people couldn’t sit at lunch counters.
When this type of practice starts dominating our landscape (no pun intended), then I have no problem — none at all — for the government to step in do what it is supposed to do: ensure the blessing of life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness to everyone.
P.S. I don’t know LSB’s stance when it comes to the supposed “War Against Christmas”, but under the logic she expresses here, it certainly seems like she should have no problem with Walmart saying “Happy Holidays”. Is that correct?
That is absolutely correct. - Admin
Uh … time out here …
How is MOWING THE LAWN of a homosexual person either encouraging or discouraging homosexuality?
In fact, aren’t you in some way DETRACTING from the homosexual person by taking his money??
Off topic! I just watched an interview by Black Power advocates of the libertarian economist Walter Block. It was conducted post Katrina (perhaps recently) in New Orleans where he is a professor. It is hilarious.
The interview doesn’t begin until 20 minutes or so into the hour long program. Being a non-techy, the information on getting it is on today’s lewrockwell.com.blog. It has to be one of the most priceless interviews I have ever seen. Of course, the 2 interviewers disagreed with everything he said.
The whole point of being in business for yourself for me would be the ability to pick and choose those for whom I would work.
I don’t like being around negative or rude people. I don’t like being around people who don’t pay their bills (especially mine). I don’t want to KNOW intimate details of my clients’ lives - particularly when it isn’t germane to the business transaction and I’d just as soon not be drawn into that kind of thing. I have my own drama, thank you.
I work for the sole purpose of supporting myself. My friends and family are deliberately kept separate and distinct. One does not and should not have anything to do with the other.
Interesting discussion…
To add to the mix:
*Should Catholic hospitals be forced to provide elective abortions to all patients who want them?
*Should a landlord be allowed to discriminate based on the marital status of a couple? The gender? On their race? What if the landlord has had difficulty in the past with tenants of a particular race–e.g., not paying the rent or extensive property damage? Does that allow the landlord to selectively exclude prospective tenants? (Landlords ~are~ allowed to discriminate by the financial history and perceived financial ability of the tenant to pay.) Currently, in California, the Fair Housing Law says no. But how is a house different than a mechanic discriminating against an owner of a certain make/model of automobile?
*Why can a developer build “adult only” community and prohibit children under 18 from living there? What’s the difference between discriminating by age vs. by gender or by race or by sexual orientation?
*Does a privately-held small business have different legal obligations than a large corporation with publicly-traded stock (which is what Wal-Mart is, I believe)?
From a Christian perspective, I believe that the owners of the landscaping business did the wrong thing. I explain why in my post The Case of the Judgmental Landscapers. (Of course, I mention La Shawn’s post in mine.)
When it comes to discriminating against potential customers, great care needs to be exercised. If you believe that you would be aiding the commission of a particular sin by serving a particular customer, then you shouldn’t serve that customer.
The last time that I checked, it isn’t a sin to be black. Thus, one would not be aiding sin by serving black customers.
So, were those Christian landscapers in Houston asked to aid the commission of a sin? I don’t think so. Landscaping the lawn of those homosexual men would not have enabled them to sin any more than they already were.
Why can a developer build “adult only†community and prohibit children under 18 from living there?
Under the 1988 amendment to the Federal Fair Housing Act, “adult only” communities are against the law unless they are designated toward senior citizens. Thus, developers cannot prohibit minors from living there. Again, businesses are not totally free to service who they want to service.
This amendment has been detrimental to many neighborhoods though.
Coming late to the party here…
Two questions - how is that the landscaping business owners are aware that the owners are homosexuals? That seems a bit odd to me. Maybe it’s just known in the area, but then again, maybe their homosexuality is blatant and offensive.
Second… not a question, but a statement…businesses are different in that some are “walk in” to the public, and others are personal in that the business owner/employee goes to the person who wants their business. Walk in businesses are in a difficult position if they want to discriminate on a personal basis, but someone who contracts to do business at the customer’s home or office are in a different situation. They can discriminate by simply not having “openings” or whatever. If the landscape people sent a letter/email to the people stating that they wouldn’t work for homosexuals, then they were a bit foolish - to say the least - but if they chose not to work for them and just declined the job, I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with it. What is the option? that you mandate that a business offering its services must accept every job that comes along? No refusals for any reason?
This “serving the public” conditional is a red herring. You can own a retail store and discriminate all day long. For instance, you might have a beauty salon and not cater to the hair care needs of men and blacks. You can even bar children. You can have a grocery store that is structured solely for vegetarians. You can own a dress shop and refuse to allow men to try on the outfits.
The fact that your door swings out onto a sidewalk where the public walks does not mean that the public has any particular rights within your store. You can have a door that is three feet high and refuse admittance to anyone taller.
Racial discrimination laws are a hodge-podge of court decisions that have fallen under the elastic umbrella of the “commerce” clause of the Constitution. However, if you have a pile of wood for sale on your land and cut from trees on your land, you can jolly well refuse to sell it to anyone for any reason you choose.
My question is, why would a couple of homosexuals insist on services from people who do not want to associate with them?
In the 1950’s, I was used to seeing a sign on US441 heading to Lake Okeechobee in Florida. It was for a dive catfish restaurant and it had a reflecting message that said: “No N******, No Sp**** and No J***.” The parking lot was usually full. At least the people passing by were getting useful information about what the climate inside was like.
That sort of overt bigotry has been turned on its head. Recently, a Philly cheese steak place put a sign in the window saying that you must order in English. The ACLU climbed all over them.
A small business person has lots of legal room to skip over certain parts of the public. But the consequences of negative publicity may not be consistent with the capitalist dream.
For instance, you might have a beauty salon and not cater to the hair care needs of men and blacks.
Such a salon would not be catering to a certain texture of hair that happens to be common with blacks. If Mariah Carey stepped into the place, there would be no problem.
People can find some way to exclude a racial or ethnic group, but one cannot make open refusal to serve a certain racial or ethnic group their policy.
As a business owner, frankly I have a hard time believing companies like this can stay in business for very long. How in the world can a company take the time to dig through a potential customer’s history to make sure the customer hasn’t indulged in anything “offensive” before? My goodness — how does one decide who’s in and who’s out? Homosexuals are out, but straight men who beat their wives and molest the kids — they’re in?
I should think a business owner would have more important things to worry about than driving away customers just to prove a point that nobody else cares about.
#55 shade notes: “People can find some way to exclude a racial or ethnic group, but one cannot make open refusal to serve a certain racial or ethnic group their policy.”
You are probably on firm ground, but in my town there are a multitude of fraternal groups that are black only. However, I am unaware of any white only fraternal groups. I DO understand that a fraternal group is TOTALLY different from a business, but I find the double standard to be striking.
I made note of the convoluted court decisions based on the Commerce clause in my post above. However, if the seller of firewood wants to bar whites from buying his wood, I doubt they can get at him through the Commerce clause.
The love of Christ is what should be central in this topic. This is a Christian couple…I think Jesus would have done the work and befriended these people. But that’s just me.
Unless the gays are walking around the yard wearing thong underwear, or having sex on the lawn,(same goes for heterosexuals) I don’t see why they should not be serviced.
This only adds credence to the misconception that Christians and conservatives are homophobes.
The Jerry said, If you want government out of your bedrooms, then stop advertising what you do in your bedrooms in the street, on t.v. and in the classroom.â€
That’s the truth, especially in the classrom!
#57 “My goodness — how does one decide who’s in and who’s out? Homosexuals are out, but straight men who beat their wives and molest the kids — they’re in?”
It’s all down to personal choice. If a person wants to expend 1000% more energy fighting the Gay Menace than the Heterosexual Menace, then that is their prerogative.
I was in NYC theater for many years and personally if I were a business owner I would never do business with heterophobic drama queens.
As a Christian I believe that our main focus on this earth is to share the gospel and seek to usher more people into the Kingdom of Christ, but I also believe that every meeting is not necessarily a “window of opportunity” to witness. The circumstances of the meeting and the openness of the other party play a great part, and if it is determined to be a “shake the dust off your feet”(Matt 10:14) situation then I think that we definitely have a right to choose not to be employed by or linked to whomever we believe to be against our own personal belief system. Hate language, lawsuits, bitterness, since when did it become “intolerable” to take a stand for righteousness? Oh, thats right when the Church looked on passively during the last few decades and allowed Liberalism to become the moral compass. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Prov 14:24
I just picked up on this story and I want to throw my hat in the ring. I have no problem with a privately owned company wanting to refuse service to any client they so wish. I don’t think it’s very bright but they have the right. On the subject of how hateful and mean the rebuked clients became, it is my understanding that they simply told their friends and family what had happened and why they had been refused and turned the page. They didn’t send the hate mails and the threats to the landscapers….I heard it was from as far away as Australia that some of these threats were coming from. I don’t think you should connect the gay couple to the threats. They simply told their story and it turned into the firestorm it is now.
What’s ironic here is that the Christian couple deal with homosexuals every day of their lives without knowing it. Suppliers, friends, mailmen, cops, store clerks, employees….gays are everywhere. Whatever right? So while the private company has the right to refuse service to the gay couple, the gay couple has rights as well. They have the right to mobilize the gay community and boycott the company, follow their trucks around and make sure they aren’t hiring illegal aliens, call on the business clients of the landscapers and let them know they will be boycotted, publish a list of their clients and ask for boycotts and hire a new landscaping company and give them as much gay business as possible. All perfectly legal. I hope they fight back on this but I also hope they fight back honestly and legally. May the best team win!
You are probably on firm ground, but in my town there are a multitude of fraternal groups that are black only. However, I am unaware of any white only fraternal groups. I DO understand that a fraternal group is TOTALLY different from a business, but I find the double standard to be striking.
You’re right. This is totally different from a business.
And there are numerous fraternal groups exclusively for individual white ethnicities.
And this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224398,00.html
Someone said that the landscapers had Bible quotes and anti-gay links…and the gay couple still choose them…maybe they did not care about the landscapers beliefs…then again, maybe they chose them just because they thought it WOULD cause a stir…seems to me like the gay couple were just daring the Christian company to say no….hummmm……
Unless doing the landscaping of a client promotes homosexuality or if the landscaper takes his children on the job with him and he doesn’t want them to think that homosexuality is okay then I think the landscaper should have taken the job.
Regarding March Hare’s questions:
*Should Catholic hospitals be forced to provide elective abortions to all patients who want them?
No, because it violates their faith.
*Should a landlord be allowed to discriminate based on the marital status of a couple?
Yes, because it violates their faith.
Here’s a few of my questions.
* Should a business owner be forced to duplicate two pro-homosexual videos by a lesbian activist? http://www.lc.org/libertyalert/2006/la050206.htm
* Should a newspaper or magazine be required to run every proposed ad? (They don’t.)
* As a web developer should I be required to create pornographic, witchcraft, white supremacy, pro-embryonic stem cell, NAMBLA or anti-Christian web sites (I’m sure there are many other examples)?
* When am I allowed to say no, because of my faith?
It’s all down to personal choice. If a person wants to expend 1000% more energy fighting the Gay Menace than the Heterosexual Menace, then that is their prerogative.
I guess. It’s just sad that anyone would spend any energy fighting against other human beings, instead of spending that same time being kind and reaching out. At least that’s what I always thought Jesus stood for…
When a person has a small business, you run into all sorts of people. I’m in a service oriented type of business, and, frankly, what people do in their bedrooms isn’t any of my business. And, as a matter of fact, most of the gay people I’ve worked for were cool. I’m a christian, and it’s amazing just how far out of their way some people wilol go to interfre in someone else’s biz. Be a good person is what I say, and I hope to live up to that standard.
I think that you have the right to do business with whoever you wish. That works both ways, I have the right to not patronize Wal-Mart, for example, they have the right to tell me that they do not want my business too.
But as a Christian, I think that choosing not to do business with “sinners” would mean that you could only do business with your own self-righteous self. Christ did not refuse to be around those who lived in sin. Since that was not his example, I will not emulate it. Paul said, “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.”
People lost in this world are by their very nature lost in sin, we are to love them to Christ, not condemn them to their sin.
#68.
“At least that’s what I always thought Jesus stood for…”
History has shown that religious people re-interpet and re-focus bits of what they call their Holy books. The focuses change depending at least partly upon the political/social climate.
Listening to so-called Conservative Christian pay-per-pun propagandists from the Bible Belt and beyond is enough to make even the dullest agnostic at least stop and think…”huh”?
I try to remember that the condescending, de-personifying, snobbish, self-righteous, bigoted, sneering hate-speeches heard today (at both extremes of so-called left and right) do not respectively characterize either ‘conservatism’. Christianity or ‘liberalism’ respectively. They just demonstrate brutish and selfish thought processes.
Remember, one prominent so-called Christian only recently stated that to be liberal is to be ‘godless.’
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/072806BECKENDORF.shtml
It’s just the modern version of witch-hunting, yet even more profitable than it was for Matthew Hopkins way back when.
Camels, eyes and needles
LaShawn:
I’m going to offer an opinion that many people may not understand on this topic. Please don’t let your eyes glaze over.
From a strictly-legal standpoint, I think the way precedent works in this country, if one cannot refuse to serve a [ethnic minority], one is stuck with the problem of being legally unable to refuse service anyone. If the bar-keep has to serve anyone who is not drunk, and must refuse to serve someone who is drunk, the legal box is pretty well defined.
But the real question for Christians is “is this the way we live the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” You know: I’ll bet that the place where this landscaper gets the gas for his car is run by someone who is divorced and remarried; I’ll bet he bought his truck, someone there was committing adultery; I’ll bet one of the kids in the church they attend has shoplifted, and a couple of the adults have cheated on their taxes. I’ll bet they know someone who has had an abortion. I’ll bet at least one police officer on their local force has taken the Lord’s name in vain.
All that said, are they going to refuse to interact with all these people? Why — to stay “separated from sin”? What does that mean? See — the in NT, Christians were well known for not doing these things but they were also well known for loving those who did. That doesn’t mean that they allowed and coddled those who were pagans in a pagan society, but it means doing what you do for God’s glory.
For example, it makes sense to me that a Christian would want to express the wrath of God to someone who was doing some immoral act. But we express the wrath of God not by employing it against sinner but by declaring that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Does God not want to reach homosexuals? What about liars? What about those who are greedy and think other people do not deserve what they have earned? If God wants to reach sinners, we have to encounter the sinners. And the sinners — they’re not just people who live in the rain forest or people who live in Africa or people who are Muslims in Near-Asia.
These people who are calling in death threats to Christians who think refusing to do business is God’s will — these are sinners who need Christ! And if we don’t find a way to deliver the Gospel to them and bring repentance and baptism and discipleship to them, we will have been exactly like the Pharisees who searched the whole Earth for one convert and then made him into ten times the hypocrite we are ourselves.
The Gospel is not a Gospel which tells us to live in a bunker: it is Good News which has the power to save — even the Homosexual who needs landscaping, and even the Christian separatist who refuses to do it.
God bless you and keep you.
Nothing like an unmowed lawn to convict the soul and lay the groundwork for revival.
Please. Just take the money and do the yardwork. It’s silly to reject business based on the lifestyle of your customer when that lifestyle has nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction in question.
The couple should, of course, have the right to refuse service to anyone. But doing so in this circumstance says they lack the judgement to know what fights are worth picking. This ain’t one of ‘em. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the logic in this choice.
One thing that is missed by everyone discussing racial discrimination, particularly of blacks, is that the main fight in the ’60’s was against southern de jure segregation. If you look at the history of southern segregation, many of the private companies (bus lines, train lines, national drug chains, etc.) did not refuse services voluntarily but had to follow the state and local laws. Southern segregation added an unwanted expense. The whole point of the fight in the South was that the state and local governments (public services) were not allowing equal access to essentially public facilities and public use areas.
I grew up as a boy in the Midwest (Ohio) and went to high school in South Carolina, right at the point where the public schools were integrated, and have lived in the South ever since. The Midwest urban area I grew up in as a child was much more segregated than was the SC city, but strictly by personal choice, not by public law. The separate school systems were done away with because these were government facilities, and the separate systems did not make a lot of sense in Southern states that were very poor in those days.
Now many discrimination laws have been passed to address and try to do away with the Northern discrimination type, which was voluntary social mores rather than government laws and regulations. This is trickier, because private choices, such as who to serve with a private business, cannot be attacked by changing government laws. And when you attack social mores, then you begin interfering with everyone’s freedom of association. The social mores are harder to break; in most of the South, blacks were badly discriminated against, by law, but were considered part of the community (they belonged within the social structure). In the Midwest, blacks were not so blatantly discriminated against , expecially by law, but the general feeling was they didn’t belong within the prevailing social structure (ghettoized into separate communities).
In my lifetime, the positive changes that have been made in race relations have come more from changes in attitudes, which is ultimately the only way you finally break the Northern de facto discrimination pattern. My children have completely different attitudes toward race than I have, and I have far different attitudes regarding race, ethnic origin, religion and even sexual orientation than did my father, who had a far different attitude than did my grandparents (western KY, very Confederate/Southern small town).
Changing attitudes takes a long time, and a lot of work, but is ultimately the only way we progress on discrimination issues. In the case of the gay couple raising such a ruckus and threatening legal action against a private business, their action may be legally sound, depending on the jurisdiction, but is probably detrimental to the cause of increasing their acceptance. The civil rights leaders that Lashawn and other conservative black bloggers write about (Rev. Jackson, Al Sharpton, Andrew Young) are still fighting the old de jure system, even though it and Bull Connor have been dead a long time. This is their Achilles heel, and why they are loing influence with younger generations. And when it becomes okay to discriminate against or deride some groups (Christians, Jews, Southern Rednecks) through discrimination laws, while not being allowed to do the same for other groups (African Americans, Hispanics, Gay couples, women), then we missed the whole point of the Civil Rights movement somewhere along the line.
The balance needs to be made between Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, while making sure that everyone has equal rights before the law. I agree with Lashawn that the best thing as regards private businesses is the Free Market; the business owner must be allowed to have choice over whom they provide services to, balanced against staying in business and the freedom of the consumer to vote with their money. When government gets involved, except in the very specific case of de jure type segregation, the whole issue will get screwed up totally.
Thanks Lashawn. Wade Hampton HS, 1971, Greenville, SC.
Comments on this entry are closed.