Landscaping Company Turns Away Gay Couple

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/landscaper-under-fire-for-refusing-to/20061109231409990006?ncid=NWS00010000000001

This makes me very sad. A landscaping company refused to provide service for a couple on the grounds that they were gay. Came right out and said so when the couple requested an estimate. "I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals."

The couple that asked for the estimate forwarded the refusal email on to 200 friends, urging them not to patronize the business. Pretty reasonable response, in my book. They want to be picky-choosy about who they do business with, well, right back atcha.

But then the Internet got a hold of it, and the couple that runs the company were attacked pretty heavily to the point that there were threats made against them and their family. I'm sure I can imagine the basic Net flaming in action, which carries to extreme when you're talking about impact to your real life business.

Somehow I doubt that this little "life lesson" has taught them anything about being more open to dealing with homosexuals. To quote from this article, "The crowd of tolerance and diversity is not so tolerant."

There's a little poll on the page "Should businesses be able to reject clients based on sexual orientation." I stared at it for a little bit before clicking Yes. I could change my tune in the next hour (I actually did by the time I was done typing this), but frankly, I don't like either answer. Should businesses reject people based on orientation? Hell no. But nor am I comfortable forcing a small business to work with anyone. Granted, I chose that answer because we're talking about a small family business. If we were talking about Wal-mart, or let's say, Denny's, I feel unequivocably different. I feel it would be outright unacceptable for a larger company to turn away, or poorly treat, a customer based on race, religion, sexual orientaion, gender, etc. I suppose I might set the difference in my mind as a standard of "retail business" versus "client business". I think it would also be outrageous to walk into a public garden center and have the Farber's ask me to leave for being gay. If that had been the scenario in the article, then yeah, I'd have voted No. I suppose that really, the Farbers should be expected to lie about why they won't work with the homos just like they would have to lie about their reasoning if they refused to work with a black family or a Muslim family. Yeah, I definitely already changed my mind on the poll question.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely think there should be a penalty for discrimination. I think that Mr. Lord and Mr. Lackey had the right of it when they decided to publicize the discrimination and call for a boycott. That's a very appropriate way to handle things when a business makes poor decisions. The subsequent hate mail and threats though... that helps nobody. Looks like all it did was confirm to the Farbers that they made the right choice by not working with "those people". Woo woo... big win for the advancement of social causes.

And then again, it does feel good to know that people cared enough to raise a big stink and express that such behavior is not okay. Mostly heterosexual people, from what I can gather. That's not meaningless.

The whole thing is just sad.