A company tried to kindly say that they don't work with homosexuals. In response, the couple forwarded the email to others. That's right, that the word go out that you are dissatisfied with a company, good call. The problem then is the crap you get with polygenic emails.
I would like those responsible for threatening the family to be jailed. Sodomy threats ... nice. Way to make inroads to acceptance and tolerance. Yeah, that'll help. The family that decided against an opportunity because they chose not to contract with homosexuals, should knowingly lose some business. It is not understandable to have threats. A family that doesn't work with homosexuals is threatened with aberant sexual practices. Isn't that another reason why homosexuals are distrusted and hated?
Boy, what a mess!
I agree that you should lose business if you don't work with select groups of people. I also agree that those groups should ally with each other and not do business with that business. I also agree that people should know of that policy. The rape threats really should peeve the homosexuals, not the family who declined service. This really underscores why homosexuals are a "threat" (perceived) to people. While the gay couple probably didn't threaten the family, certainly any reasonable person could narrowly and phobically directly link homosexuality to rape.
This justifies the hate and fear of the business owners and those in opposition to homosexuals. To the rape threateners, homosexual-haters salute you, for you have done something that they could not -- link rape to homosexuality. Nice going, idiots!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Mt. Trouble from ant hill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The business owners never expressed hate or fear, just their policy. I've never heard of a company that doesn't "reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." They OFFER a service, they aren't some government organization that has to make everyone happy, they serve who they choose to serve, and if they don't want gay money, then more power to 'em.
Right! If I was unclear, sorry. I did mention that they sent a letter deciding not to do the work. Others who got the email or the ammended version of it went into fury over nothing. The business was right to decline service as it wasn't a necessity and they weren't a government job. The gay couple were also right in inlisting friends to not use their service of the comnpany. With those things, I agree.
I wrote and included it only because of the stupidity of others making it something that it wasn't, a problem.
Post a Comment