Houston landscapers refuse gay couple’s job

[Catholig]

Why do you disagree with religious discrimination if religion is a choice like homosexuality?

If a business did not want to serve or hire you because of yr faith, it easy enough to change religions. So why should you boycott or otherwise harrass a business who did not want people like you if you can just convert? Easy enough to do.

Religion is a choice. Just like homosexuality. Correct?

MikeinSD,

When I said I don’t agree with religious discrimination what I meant was I personally wouldn’t discriminate based religion. I still believe that a person should have the right to choose who they serve, and employ.

And if a business didn’t want to serve or hire me because of my faith, honestly, I wouldn’t probably wouldn’t boycott them unless I really needed the job because I wouldn’t want to work in an environment that is openly hostle to my beliefs. That said though things shouldn’t have to be resolved by the gov’t every five seconds. The business should have the right to choose who they hire/serve. The consumer should have the right to choose who they work for/buy from.

Religion is a choice. Just like homosexuality.

 

[porthos11]

I for one do not agree with the actions of the landscaper. Serving the gay couple would simply have been the landscaping the home of two guys. It would not have carried the moral problems of confirming people in their sin. But as it stood, they refused to serve them because they were homosexual, but for no good business reasons whatsoever. This is discrimination against gay people, and the Church condemns such discrimination against them.

Gays should not be confirmed in their sin, of course, but they are just as entitled to the legitimate rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as your great country’s declaration reads. These people were just as entitled to enjoy landscape services. Where does it end? Do we stop selling them food? Clothing? Shelter? At what point does refusing to serve them become wrong?

Would it not have been better to serve them, befriend them, and then from time to time squeeze in conversations about their faith, and perhaps discreetly place flyers of tracts in an effort to move them to chastity? Instead, what did they do? They provided the bad and false witness that Christians hated gays. Whether or not this was their intention is beside the point. The fact is this is what came across.

This is not the message we want to give if we want to reach out to them. The truth of their lifestyle must be spoken to them in love. And landscaping their lawn would have been a great opportunity.

 

[Jeffrey]

Its really quite simple… hire another landscaper. Yeesh.

Or better yet… repent… and turn from homosexuality.

I for one do not agree with the actions of the landscaper. Serving the gay couple would simply have been the landscaping the home of two guys. It would not have carried the moral problems of confirming people in their sin. But as it stood, they refused to serve them because they were homosexual, but for no good business reasons whatsoever. This is discrimination against gay people, and the Church condemns such discrimination against them.

Gays should not be confirmed in their sin, of course, but they are just as entitled to the legitimate rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as your great country’s declaration reads. These people were just as entitled to enjoy landscape services. Where does it end? Do we stop selling them food? Clothing? Shelter? At what point does refusing to serve them become wrong?

Would it not have been better to serve them, befriend them, and then from time to time squeeze in conversations about their faith, and perhaps discreetly place flyers of tracts in an effort to move them to chastity? Instead, what did they do? They provided the bad and false witness that Christians hated gays. Whether or not this was their intention is beside the point. The fact is this is what came across.

This is not the message we want to give if we want to reach out to them. The truth of their lifestyle must be spoken to them in love. And landscaping their lawn would have been a great opportunity.

 

[gelsbern]

Sexual orientation does not equal race, creed, or religion.

As soon as you start protecting one sexual orientation, you open the door to having protect others. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as an abnormal and imorral, what sexual orientation will become acceptable to society in the next 50 years? Pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism? The line must be drawn, and sexual orientation should not be protected as a civil right. There is no God given right to practice homosexuality.

 

[Catholig]

porthos11,

The GardenGuys didn’t provide a bad and false witness that Christians hate gays. They wrote an honest email stating that they didn’t feel that they could accept a job because the couple were gay. It wasn’t hate speech by any stretch of the imagination.

And as for it being alright to preform land scaping services because it wouldn’t be confirming the couple in their sins simply I would have done the same thing as the land scapers did. I don’t like to sin, and I don’t like to be around sin especially mortal sin. And I don’t think the CC condemns not providing services to those in a state of mortal sin.

Also the constitution doesn’t guaranty the right to force someone to work for you for any amount of time. There is no amendment which states that everyone is entitle to a nice garden or whatever.

Catholig

 

[Jeffrey]

Thx for the posts gelsbern and Catholig. You both put it well.

Sexual orientation does not equal race, creed, or religion.

As soon as you start protecting one sexual orientation, you open the door to having protect others. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as an abnormal and imorral, what sexual orientation will become acceptable to society in the next 50 years? Pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism? The line must be drawn, and sexual orientation should not be protected as a civil right. There is no God given right to practice homosexuality.

Catholig:

The GardenGuys didn’t provide a bad and false witness that Christians hate gays. They wrote an honest email stating that they didn’t feel that they could accept a job because the couple were gay. It wasn’t hate speech by any stretch of the imagination.

And as for it being alright to preform land scaping services because it wouldn’t be confirming the couple in their sins simply I would have done the same thing as the land scapers did. I don’t like to sin, and I don’t like to be around sin especially mortal sin. And I don’t think the CC condemns not providing services to those in a state of mortal sin.

Also the constitution doesn’t guaranty the right to force someone to work for you for any amount of time. There is no amendment which states that everyone is entitle to a nice garden or whatever.

 

[Catholig]

oops! I meant guarantee.

Catholig

 

[Veritas41]

They provided the bad and false witness that Christians hated gays. Whether or not this was their intention is beside the point. The fact is this is what came across.

I read the article, and I didn’t get the impression they “hated” gays. This is the problem --any criticism of homosexuality is construed as “hate.” Landscaping their home isn’t a service necessary for survival like providing food or clothing, and I’m sure the gay couple could find other landscaping companies to do their landscaping for them. Houston is a big city. Providing a service or product to a homosexual who walks into your business isn’t the same as going to the home where they live together. That is much more likely to give the appearance of approval because you *know *then you have two people living together in an immoral situation.

Several years ago a Christian couple got into legal trouble because they refused to rent a room (it was a motel or lodge) to a heterosexual unmarried couple. Of course, they were accused of being judgmental,etc. But their right to follow their conscience, whether you agree with what they did, should supersede their customers’ desire for lodging.

 

[estesbob]

No. You cannot. Especially in Houston. If a business emailed an African American couple and declined to bid because they do not serve Negros, I think this would be actionable. Religion, like race, is also a protected catagory under the various state and federal civil rights laws. And this business made it a point to decline the business of the couple rather than just not bidding or ignoring the bid request.

?

It is patenty racist to claim there is any similarity between a people who were bought to this country in chains , sold, beaten , worked to death and murdered at their owners whim with a people who’s only distinguishing characteristic is engageing in sodomy.

 

[estesbob]

Why do you disagree with religious discrimination if religion is a choice like homosexuality?

If a business did not want to serve or hire you because of yr faith, it easy enough to change religions. So why should you boycott or otherwise harrass a business who did not want people like you if you can just convert? Easy enough to do.

Religion is a choice. Just like homosexuality. Correct?

So lets see the slippery slope we are now sliding down. Homosexual behavior equals race and homosexual behavior equals religion. I am sure it will get more ludicosu as we go along. Perhaps we’ll be toldtell us that homosexual behavior glorifies God or homosexual behavior is not sinful.

 

[Digitonomy]

Sexual orientation does not equal race, creed, or religion.

You are exactly right, at least under federal law. Sexual orientation may be a protected class under Texas law or municipal law in Houston, but if not you are free to discriminate on this basis, just as you can discriminate against all people wearing plaid. Unless that effectively discriminates against Scots.

 

[Corki]

You are exactly right, at least under federal law. Sexual orientation may be a protected class under Texas law or municipal law in Houston, but if not you are free to discriminate on this basis, just as you can discriminate against all people wearing plaid. Unless that effectively discriminates against Scots.

It isn’t protected in Texas or even in Houston. The closest thing here is protection for city employees. Privately owned businesses are not required by law to give prefererential treatment or protection to anyone based on sexual orientation - not even in hiring.

Landscaping companies decide who to work for based on many different criteria including whether they like your neighborhood or agree with your color scheme. This is nothing like a business that is open to the public. The work was to be completed at the homosexual couple’s home. For a private business person to decline to subject him/herself or their employees to those working conditions is completely legal (at least for now).

 

[WenckebachCath]

It isn’t protected in Texas or even in Houston. The closest thing here is protection for city employees. Privately owned businesses are not required by law to give prefererential treatment or protection to anyone based on sexual orientation - not even in hiring.

Landscaping companies decide who to work for based on many different criteria including whether they like your neighborhood or agree with your color scheme. This is nothing like a business that is open to the public. The work was to be completed at the homosexual couple’s home. For a private business person to decline to subject him/herself or their employees to those working conditions is completely legal (at least for now).

Thank you very much for this post. It clarifies the matter in my mind. It explains well the difference between a shop open to the public and a service, such as landscaping, where they go to someone’s home. It would be similar to someone who cleans houses, carpets, or any other home service. I think, then, that these people were within their rights entirely.

I do question, however, the discretion of the wife in sending the email specifying the reason for refusal. It doesn’t seem like a very effective tool for building bridges towards homosexuals.

 

[MikeinSD]

So lets see the slippery slope we are now sliding down. Homosexual behavior equals race and homosexual behavior equals religion. I am sure it will get more ludicosu as we go along. Perhaps we’ll be toldtell us that homosexual behavior glorifies God or homosexual behavior is not sinful.

Who cares about you think about God and homosexuality. I’m an American and talking about my country’s laws.

Race is covered under civil rights laws just as religion is. I just thought racial characteristics are immutable – i.e. “characteristics associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features”
eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html

Religion is not an immutable chracteristic. No such thing as a human that is biologically Catholic or Baptist or Amish. Religion is a matter of choice.

So if someone objects to your faith, why don’t you change it? Lots of good God-fearing folks really don’t like your faith. Isn’t it rude to keep annoying these good people? They think you are going hell. Your beliefs are simply your choice. Why are you so proud that you can’t simply change your opinion and convert? The soul you might save could be your own.

It’s only what you are asking us gay men to do. Leave our partners and families, castrate ourselves physically and psychologically, to satisfy believers in a faith we do not subscribe to. If religion is a choice just as homosexuality, why can’t you change as you ask us to change?

Be that as it may, posters could read up on why religion is considered a protected category along with race in civil rights laws. Interesting reading.

 

[Catholig]

Who cares about you think about God and homosexuality. I’m an American and talking about my country’s laws.

Race is covered under civil rights laws just as religion is. I just thought racial characteristics are immutable – i.e. “characteristics associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features”
eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html

Religion is not an immutable chracteristic. No such thing as a human that is biologically Catholic or Baptist or Amish. Religion is a matter of choice.

So if someone objects to your faith, why don’t you change it? Lots of good God-fearing folks really don’t like your faith. Isn’t it rude to keep annoying these good people? They think you are going hell. Your beliefs are simply your choice. Why are you so proud that you can’t simply change your opinion and convert? The soul you might save could be your own.

It’s only what you are asking us gay men to do. Leave our partners and families, castrate ourselves physically and psychologically, to satisfy believers in a faith we do not subscribe to. If religion is a choice just as homosexuality, why can’t you change as you ask us to change?

Be that as it may, posters could read up on why religion is considered a protected category along with race in civil rights laws. Interesting reading.

MikeinSD,

As I said before I’d prefer not to have ANY protected category bits. I don’t believe you should have to hire someone you don’t want to, or serve someone you don’t want to, and I believe that it is silly to take such things to court. If someone refuses to sell you something it is really their problem because they aren’t unloading merchandise, but besides that if you have a big enough problem you could boycott it, or whatever. There is no need for government interference.

As for homosexuality in general and its comparison with religion as I said both homosexuality and religion are choices. I freely admit that. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe that the Church has the truth, but it is a choice to follow that truth, and the Church herself.

To lead a chaste life though isn’t to castrate yourself physically or psychologically, and I think that more than half the country is opposed to gay marriage or civil unions. This means that you are forcing your beliefs on the majority of America, and tarnishing something christians hold sacred. I don’t believe this is a right, and it certainly isn’t guaranteed by the constitution.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

I do question, however, the discretion of the wife in sending the email specifying the reason for refusal. It doesn’t seem like a very effective tool for building bridges towards homosexuals.

WenckebachCath,

I don’t think there was any malice in her sending that e-mail. She was simply declining a job, and giving an honest reason (which I think might be required least the couple phone confused as to why they’d been turned down). Personally I don’t think that the wife had thought “how can I convert these people” but instead something along the lines of “this situation makes me uncomfortable so I’ll tell them why I can’t work for them”. As I said before I think that they were just avoiding something that might lead them into sin, or to accept this sin as “normal”. Maybe they were even protecting their children if the children come by to help with the landscaping - who knows.

Catholig

 

[KathleenElsie]

Look IMHO the only time that it is proper to refuse anyone services (if you are in business) is when those services PROMOTE their cause.

 

[estesbob]

Who cares about you think about God and homosexuality. I’m an American and talking about my country’s laws.

Race is covered under civil rights laws just as religion is. I just thought racial characteristics are immutable – i.e. “characteristics associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features”
eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html

.

Equating race with sodomy is racist

Equating religion was sodomy is blasphemy

No constitutional rights accrue from anal sex

 

[calchiquita]

Yes, religion is a choice. Millions convert from one faith to another every decade. Sexual orientation is not a choice. From a secular legal perspective – if it is legal to refuse gay men as customers because of their immoral choice, why can’t Garden Guy refuse sinful customers who worship a false god. Or God in a false way? All the customers have to do is convert. Correct?

Hmmmmm… Is religion a choice? How could I not be Catholic once God has shown me the things he has about the church?

 

[b_justb]

Would it be my perogative, if I ran a business, to refuse business to Catholics because I disagreed with their religious beliefs?

Personally I would say, yes you do. I think the equal opportunity laws would say other wise, however.