A man calls a local landscaper from the information on his website and asks him to come over to bid on his landscaping job. After a few minutes of conversation it is determined that the customer is gay and is asking for bids on a home he shares with his homosexual partner of over 9 years. The call ends and the landscaper sends the prospects an email informing them that because of their sexual orientation, he is unwilling to continue to bid on their job and advises them to find another landscaper. The prosepects are outraged and quickly issue all manner of threats against the landscaper and his business for having thus offended him.
Was the landscaper wrong in sticking to his own moral convictions whether or not you agree with them? There’s more.
It turns out that the landscaper’s website prominently states his support for traditional marriage and family (which by definition, excludes those in the gay lifestyle). What’s more, the prospect and his partner are deeply involved in advancing the most radical of the gay agenda. Soo-oo, the prospect knew of the landscaper’s own orientation and yet still demanded he must serve him? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52554
What happened to tolerance? What happened to “Live and Let Live”? Once again, it appears that this is a one-way street in favor of a radical homosexual agenda for not tolerance, but what amounts to actual preference.
When will the homosexual activists see the hypocrisy of their ways? If it’s true tolerance and acceptance that they are demanding, perhaps they should show the rest of us exactly what it looks like in practice. Otherwise, their incessant claims of the elevated status of “victimhood” are highly suspect.
In the US, with our Freedom of Assembly don’t we have the right to pick and choose who we will do business with? Or is this something we’ve lost entirely? The radical homosexual activists seem unable to make these distinctions. The rest of America, however, is not so easily fooled.