NationStates Jolt Archive

More business stupidity from Texas!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4274630.html

At 9:08 a.m. Farber, who together with her husband, Todd, owns Garden Guy Inc., a landscaping company on Hillcroft, hit "send" on a message that delivered a painful blow with the verbal equivalent of a smiley face.

"Subject: Cancel Appt - Garden Guy

"Dear Mr. Lord,

"I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals.

"Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

"All my best,

"Sabrina"

I'm amazed that a business could be so self-destructive. It really reminds me of the "no blacks" and "no Jews"-type signs of old.

Matthew 9:12

Sad thing is that when this became widespread news a couple of months ago, they actually got more business from fundies who supported them.

:rolleyes:

The sad thing is that there are probably enough homophobes in that part of Texas to allow them to survive. "Hey, honey, this is the company that only works for straights! Let's hire them!"

Another argument against religion. If religion says it's fine to treat someone as a second class citizen because they are a homosexual, is contributing to the hatred that exists in the world today, and those who agree are helping to aid and abet the spread of indoctrinated hatred by not speaking out against it.

I see no logical reason why this person should have been denied service unless he had done something to the people he had been hiring.

wasn't there an equal opportunity law passed in the 60's that prohibits this kind of discrimination?

wasn't there an equal opportunity law passed in the 60's that prohibits this kind of discrimination?

I don't think it applies to gays.

wasn't there an equal opportunity law passed in the 60's that prohibits this kind of discrimination?

I don't think it applies to gays.

It doesn't apply to who you do business with. This isn't a lunch counter situation--the gay couple asked for bids on some work, and the company replied with the bit quoted in the OP. You can refuse business for any reason.

If you arer stupid enough to give up business of any kind, you need to have a limb blown off. Sorry but uptight, stupid people like that just piss me off.

wasn't there an equal opportunity law passed in the 60's that prohibits this kind of discrimination?

Only for employers. Employers fall under that act that they have to be an equal opportunity employer. Businesses can still limit who they service.

It doesn't apply to who you do business with. This isn't a lunch counter situation--the gay couple asked for bids on some work, and the company replied with the bit quoted in the OP. You can refuse business for any reason.

i was wondering about this sort of thing a few days ago and was going to start a thread about it but i couldn't think how i'd construct the OP. it was prompted by something about a trans-sexual couple being refused a room at a guest-house (sorry, i don't have a source).

my friend suggested that guest-house owners should be allowed to refuse rooms to trans-sexuals on the basis that they are trans-sexuals because it is their property and their choice as to who to rent rooms to. she thinks that discrimination is best tackled with education and it shouldn't be outlawed.

i questioned this on a number of points.

i wasn't sure of the legality of it: isn't it illegal to discriminate like this? or does this count as choosing "who you do business with"? i'm pretty sure it's illegal to refuse to do business with ethnic groups in shops and hostelries, why not other groups?

while i do think education is very important it's quite easy just to zone out when one is being 'educated'. sometimes it's necessary to make people confront their prejudices, otherwise they will never listen and change.

is this just a question of what one considers more valuable, property rights or rights of movement and association? i think it might be, because i honestly don't consider property to be sacrosanct in any way, whereas my friend definitely does.

Only for employers. Employers fall under that act that they have to be an equal opportunity employer. Businesses can still limit who they service.

Yeah, that worked so well for Denny's (http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/obweb/suplmnts/dennysgbu.htm), huh.

Wait, so they're turning down money? How horribly irrational.

:rolleyes:

The sad thing is that there are probably enough homophobes in that part of Texas to allow them to survive. "Hey, honey, this is the company that only works for straights! Let's hire them!"

Are you kidding? Homophobic landscaping company in Texas? You mean biggest landscaping company in Texas.

Thank God I live in the only part of Texas that doesn't suck.

More business stupidity from Texas!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4274630.html



I'm amazed that a business could be so self-destructive. It really reminds me of the "no blacks" and "no Jews"-type signs of old.

Matthew 9:12

It may be insulting to you. But-
They have the right to refuse work. They are being honest about it and not just mucking the person around.
As far as comparing this to the Jim Crow era...get over yourself.
This is nothing like then, some hicks who want to make themselves look like asses is hardly back of the bus, get out of the pool, you cant vote, etc etc.

I agree it is loathsome...but dont compare a near genocidal mentality against blacks to some hick slackjaws who cut lawns not wanting to work for homosexuals. Just dont patronize thier business and make certain no one you know does. end of story.

Wait, so they're turning down money? How horribly irrational.
Indeed.

trans-sexual

There's no hyphen in transsexual :p

Sorry, that was just annoying me...

There's no hyphen in transsexual :p

Sorry, that was just annoying me...

that makes two wordy things i learned today then. now i can go to bed knowing my shameless procrastinating has not been a complete waste of time ;)

Heh, rejecting customers because of personal reasons is pretty stupid.

that makes wordy things i learned today then. now i can go to bed knowing my shameless procrastinating has not been a complete waste of time ;)

Oh aye, when you say "transsexual couple", do you mean two transsexuals, or just one of them was transsexual?

I'm reminded of the case of several pharmacies with dogma ridden clerks who decided that selling contraceptives was against their religion. The catch was, the store was already stocking the stuff, and they didn't own the store.

It may be insulting to you. But-
They have the right to refuse work. They are being honest about it and not just mucking the person around.
As far as comparing this to the Jim Crow era...get over yourself.
This is nothing like then, some hicks who want to make themselves look like asses is hardly back of the bus, get out of the pool, you cant vote, etc etc.

I agree it is loathsome...but dont compare a near genocidal mentality against blacks to some hick slackjaws who cut lawns not wanting to work for homosexuals. Just dont patronize thier business and make certain no one you know does. end of story.

Oh, they do have that right. But they don't have the right not to be criticised for using their rights in an insulting, discriminating and generally offensive manner.

I think declining to work for a gay couple is ridiculous beyond belief. Nobody asked them to marry those two, they were simply asked to do their garden. They deserve all the heat they get.

As far as I understand it, if a business offers service to the general public, they are not allowed to refuse that service to some members of the public (blacks, gays, Jews, etc). However, a contractor doesn't offer service to all comers. The contractor makes private deals with individual clients and reserves the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. If they choose to do business with someone, then I don't think they are allowed to tailor the service to the client -- no surcharge for being gay; that kind of thing -- but they don't have to work for gays if they don't want to.

That said, what kind of fucktard bastards do they have to be to send a letter like that? Since they can withdraw their bid for the job for any reason, that means they can withdraw it for NO reason, too. They don't HAVE TO say it's because the clients are gay. That's just going out of their way to be insulting and show off their prejudice.

"Dear Client:

Thank you for accepting our bid to trim your azaleas, but we must decline the job because it turns out you're a pair of homos, and we think it would be distracting to our illegal Mexican day-laborers to be obsessively imagining you butt-banging each other all day. We know we're distracted by thinking about it already.

Best of luck,
Moron-Mowers, Inc."

Heh, rejecting customers because of personal reasons is pretty stupid.

I've refused to work at places I've interviewed at, because I deemed the manager to be an asshole.

Got a problem with that? I'm still employed - just at a place where I like to work.

Of course, it's easy to spot an asshole.

I'm wondering how the landscaper came to the conclusion that the potential customer was homosexual.

I've refused to work at places I've interviewed at, because I deemed the manager to be an asshole.

Got a problem with that? I'm still employed - just at a place where I like to work.

Of course, it's easy to spot an asshole.

I'm wondering how the landscaper came to the conclusion that the potential customer was homosexual.

Read the article.

"Dear Client:

Thank you for accepting our bid to trim your azaleas, but we must decline the job because it turns out you're a pair of homos, and we think it would be distracting to our illegal Mexican day-laborers to be obsessively imagining you butt-banging each other all day. We know we're distracted by thinking about it already.

Best of luck,
Moron-Mowers, Inc.":fluffle:

Another argument against religion. If religion says it's fine to treat someone as a second class citizen because they are a homosexual, is contributing to the hatred that exists in the world today, and those who agree are helping to aid and abet the spread of indoctrinated hatred by not speaking out against it.
Religion doesn't say this. A few jackasses say it.

I agree it is loathsome...but dont compare a near genocidal mentality against blacks to some hick slackjaws who cut lawns not wanting to work for homosexuals. Just dont patronize thier business and make certain no one you know does. end of story.
I'm not saying they need to be thrown in jail, nor am I in a position to boycott them (living several thousand miles away). I wasn't referring to the Jim Crow era so much, just those signs in shops in places like London and New York saying "no dogs, no Jews, no Irish".

I'm just laughing at their stupidity.

Oh aye, when you say "transsexual couple", do you mean two transsexuals, or just one of them was transsexual?

dunno, i was only told about the story. i didn't really look into it properly. it doesn't really matter though, the point was the guesthouse owners refused the custom of one or more transsexuals on the basis that they were transsexual.

I hope they have the need for a DOCTOR that turns out to be gay... and refuses to tend to them due to what they did...

I hope they have the need for a DOCTOR that turns out to be gay... and refuses to tend to them due to what they did...

Haha, that would be hilarious, in a hideously unethical way.

Haha, that would be hilarious, in a hideously unethical way.

Newton's Third Law of Motion.

It may be insulting to you. But-
They have the right to refuse work. They are being honest about it and not just mucking the person around.

Well, they did, to a point. She did apparently stay on the phone with him and make an appointment with him even after finding out he was gay. She was apparently too gutless to say over the phone, "Sorry, you're gay, so we won't work for you." She had to wait until she got off the phone and then send an email instead.

If she was smart, she would have pulled a politician and gave am ambiguous blow-out-the-ass excuse.

Impolite, yes.
Politically incorrect, yes.
Legal, yes.

Impolite, yes.
Politically incorrect, yes.
Legal, yes.

Repulsive, yes.

Repulsive, yes.

Lots of legal things are repulsive. So?

Lots of legal things are repulsive. So?

So is this.

So is this.

Sorry, can't pass a law against it.

Sorry, can't pass a law against it.

Sure you can.

In fact, Ontario, for one, has done the very thing.

Part 1, Section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability"

Sorry, can't pass a law against it.

against discrimination?

there are already plenty of them out there.

Sure you can.

In fact, Ontario, for one, has done the very thing.

Part 1, Section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability"

Not in the US. Not for contractors.

Not in the US. Not for contractors.

Yes, but that's hardly a surprise, seeing as the US isn't generally considered to up to speed with the rest of the western world on minority rights and discrimination laws.

Incidently, what explicitly prohibits doing such a thing.

Yes, but that's hardly a surprise, seeing as the US isn't generally considered to have a good record on minority rights and discrimination laws.

Incidently, what explicitly prohibits doing such a thing.

Read back in the thread - someone already explained it.

I hope they have the need for a DOCTOR that turns out to be gay... and refuses to tend to them due to what they did...

That would actually be illegal.

It doesn't apply to who you do business with. This isn't a lunch counter situation--the gay couple asked for bids on some work, and the company replied with the bit quoted in the OP. You can refuse business for any reason.

Here's the reason.

You don't even have to give a reason for refusing to do contracting work with someone.

I'm a software developer who works on contract. After listening to what a particular project is, or meeting whoever is running it, I can refuse to sign the contract (i.e., refuse to do the work) and go sign with someone else - and not give any reason at all.

I usually refuse because either the money is not enough, or the manager hiring me is an asshole. Going to call discrimination on that one?

Read back in the thread - someone already explained it.

No, somebody explained what the current legal situation is. However, nobody has explained why you "can't pass a law against it".

Is there some constitutional reason in the US why you couldn't?

No, somebody explained what the current legal situation is. However, nobody has explained why you "can't pass a law against it".

Is there some constitutional reason in the US why you couldn't?

You would be forcing contractors to accept whatever contract they were offered - you would remove all choice from the matter.

More of a common law problem than a Constitutional one.

If I'm a contractor, I have the right to refuse to sign a contract. And I don't have to give a reason.

Sorry, can't pass a law against it.

Sure you can. Now, the question of whether or not it would hold up to scrutiny is another issue, but you can get a law passed that says just about anything, depending on the legislators in that area.

Sure you can. Now, the question of whether or not it would hold up to scrutiny is another issue, but you can get a law passed that says just about anything, depending on the legislators in that area.

Texas?

You would be forcing contractors to accept whatever contract they were offered - you would remove all choice from the matter.

More of a common law problem than a Constitutional one.

However, common law can be modified, overruled, and defined by statute, so there is no reason why, in your words, you "can't" pass a law against it?

If I'm a contractor, I have the right to refuse to sign a contract. And I don't have to give a reason.

Yes, that may be the situation as it is now, but that's not what we're discussing.

However, common law can be modified, overruled, and defined by statute, so there is no reason why, in your words, you "can't" pass a law against it?

Yes, that may be the situation as it is now, but that's not what we're discussing.

The fundamentals of contract law would be overthrown if every contractor had to accept every contract that was passed their way.

Sorry, it's a non-starter.

Here's the reason.

You don't even have to give a reason for refusing to do contracting work with someone.

I'm a software developer who works on contract. After listening to what a particular project is, or meeting whoever is running it, I can refuse to sign the contract (i.e., refuse to do the work) and go sign with someone else - and not give any reason at all.

I usually refuse because either the money is not enough, or the manager hiring me is an asshole. Going to call discrimination on that one?
No but the original story IS discrimination

Legal discrimination or not it is.

No but the original story IS discrimination

Legal discrimination or not it is.

Sorry, I don't have to accept every contract thrown my way. Ever.

The fundamentals of contract law would be overthrown if every contractor had to accept every contract that was passed their way.

Sorry, it's a non-starter.

No, I'm not advocating contractors having to accept every contract they were offered, I'm advocating contractors not being able to refuse contracts based on race, sexuality, gender etc.

A contractor should always be able to refuse a contract for business reasons, or if they have a bad relationship with the individual involved, but never for discriminatory reasons of race, sexuality, gender, or class.

And there's nothing that means you can't pass a law stating that.

Sorry, I don't have to accept every contract thrown my way. Ever.

Did I say you did?

And here I got excited. Thought this thread had something to do with John Lydon....

Did I say you did?

I think Eve is under the impression that not being able to reject people for 'discriminatory' reasons = having to accept every contract you're offered.

I think Eve is under the impression that not being able to reject people for 'discriminatory' reasons = having to accept every contract you're offered.

Not even that I was just pointing out that it IS discrimination even if it is perfectly legal

As is right now with private industry the legality of an action is not necessarily Dependant on if it is discriminatory or not.

Did I say you did?

I don't have to give a reason.

I can choose between three contracts, and even if one isn't paying as much as the others, make up any reason I like to take it.

Such as, "well, I like the work environment better at this contract".

As long as I never say the work "gay" or some other category under such a silly law, I'm protected.

It's an idiotic idea.

I don't have to give a reason.

I can choose between three contracts, and even if one isn't paying as much as the others, make up any reason I like to take it.

Such as, "well, I like the work environment better at this contract".

As long as I never say the work "gay" or some other category under such a silly law, I'm protected.

It's an idiotic idea.

I'm confused are you arguing with something I am saying? I never voiced any support in any sort of law like that?

I am just confused you seem so argumentative but are not actually addressing anything in my posts.

I'm confused are you arguing with something I am saying? I never voiced any support in any sort of law like that?

I am just confused you seem so argumentative but are not actually addressing anything in my posts.

I'm saying that such a law would be pointless and ineffective (not to mention unenforceable).

If I were someone who didn't want to work for a gay man (or handicapped, etc), all I have to say is "well, I liked this other contract better" or "I didn't like the work environment".

As long as I don't mention the "protected" category, the law is unenforceable.

It wouldn't last.

I'm saying that such a law would be pointless and ineffective (not to mention unenforceable).

If I were someone who didn't want to work for a gay man (or handicapped, etc), all I have to say is "well, I liked this other contract better" or "I didn't like the work environment".

As long as I don't mention the "protected" category, the law is unenforceable.

It wouldn't last.

I agree

I always have

Did I post something to make you think otherwise?

I agree

I always have

Did I post something to make you think otherwise?

I'm answering Nodinia, who somehow thinks the law would not only be passable, but enforceable.

I'm answering Nodinia, who somehow thinks the law would not only be passable, but enforceable.

Ok then why did your argument with him/her come in the form of an argumentative response to my post of whether it was discrimination or not? I was in no way casting an opinion on its legality

Those are independent traits.

Ok then why did your argument with him/her come in the form of an argumentative response to my post of whether it was discrimination or not? I was in no way casting an opinion on its legality

Those are independent traits.

Well, to me, if you're going to say it is "legally a form of discrimination" then I say it's not enforceable, and would never be put into law in the US.

If you're going to say that privately, someone is silently (or in the case of the OP, quite vocally) discriminatory, I would agree that it is discriminatory.

However, it is perfectly legal. No one has the "right" to landscaping. And contractors are under no legal obligation to provide their service to everyone who asks for it.

Well, to me, if you're going to say it is "legally a form of discrimination" then I say it's not enforceable, and would never be put into law in the US.

If you're going to say that privately, someone is silently (or in the case of the OP, quite vocally) discriminatory, I would agree that it is discriminatory.

However, it is perfectly legal. No one has the "right" to landscaping. And contractors are under no legal obligation to provide their service to everyone who asks for it.

Agreed thats why my first post on the topic of if it was discriminatory or now SAID it was legal

I made a clear and pointed myself that the legality of the action is not necessarily dependent on its discriminatory quality

I think Eve is under the impression that not being able to reject people for 'discriminatory' reasons = having to accept every contract you're offered.

It would depend on how the discrimination was to be proven. If I refuse a contract with someone, they can claim it was because of any trait they possess. Do they have to show absolute proof that I said it (ie. in writing, recorded conversation, etc.) or is their word enough to at least begin an investigation?

It's kind of like the law that some state was looking at regarding people changing their living arrangements with/stopping support to a pregnant woman. The law was only supposed to affect those trying to blackmail her into abortion, but in the end, it would just come down to her saying that was the reason and them saying it wasn't.

More business stupidity from Texas!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4274630.html



I'm amazed that a business could be so self-destructive. It really reminds me of the "no blacks" and "no Jews"-type signs of old.

Matthew 9:12

Don't mess with Texas. :p

Freedom is a great thing. Especially when it's exercised in a way that pisses off the apostles of PC orthodoxy :D

Don't mess with Texas. :p

Freedom is a great thing. Especially when it's exercised in a way that pisses off the apostles of PC orthodoxy :D

Oh, yeah. Fight the man. Rebel against authority. Fight for freedom and against homosexuals and non-christians!

You go, girl! :) :) :)

wasn't there an equal opportunity law passed in the 60's that prohibits this kind of discrimination?

nope. here in arkansas I can still be fired legally for nothing other than being gay. welcome to the land of the free! your kind go to the BACK of the bus!

Oh, yeah. Fight the man. Rebel against authority. Fight for freedom and against homosexuals and non-christians!

You go, girl! :) :) :)

...your kind will never escape! now build me a FaBuLoUs pyramid before I slaughter your first-born sons. the ancient gay monarchy shall never be overthrown!

nope. here in arkansas I can still be fired legally for nothing other than being gay. welcome to the land of the free! your kind go to the BACK of the bus!

Somehow, I think the employer would be smart enough to cover their asses with a more articulate reason that would be unlikely to get bad press.

"We fired him because he was a FAG!"

I doubt they would put that in writing.

Somehow, I think the employer would be smart enough to cover their asses with a more articulate reason that would be unlikely to get bad press.

"We fired him because he was a FAG!"

I doubt they would put that in writing.

yeah, I know. it sucks because people often will do that with it being their motivation, but an employer can find another excuse pretty easily. suddenly that mistake you made three months ago takes on a whole new significance to somebody who didn't care until they knew you were gay...

I've had friends complain it's happened to them, but I'm honestly not sure if I believe them. for all it's technically legal and that sucks, people have known about gay people and coexisted with them, albiet fitfully, for a *looooong* time. I don't think this kind of discrimination happens too often in most cases, though I could see a flamer having some difficulties finding a sunday-school teaching job or something...I'm not sure why they'd want one to begin with.