10/23/2006
Anti-gay Houston Landscaper Garden Guy Reaps What He Sows
Last week an email sent from Houston business owners Todd and Sabrina Farber to a gay man and his partner interested in finding a landscaper for their new home blew up as the outraged couple's anger expanded to include hundreds of others to whom the email had been forwarded.
The email, sent following the inquiry from Michael Lord about a quote to do landscaping work, read in part: "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."
Immediately the email became a viral bullet, inspiring hundreds of emails to the landscaping business and angry postings on internet forums dedicated to gardening, including one on the couple's website, Garden Guy, Inc.
The couple reported that they have had to unlist their phone number and turn off their office phone due to the amount of phone calls they received. Said Sabrina Farber: "We have experienced threats on Todd's life. One was, 'You'd better watch your back, something's going to happen to your husband.' I woke up this morning to e-mails full of profanities." She described the experience to Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle as being "privileged to see just what happens when you make the homosexuals and the devil mad."
Casey actually defends the Farbers and their 'suffering':
"Those who lashed out at the Farbers were probably no more representative of gays as whole than the Farbers are of Christians as a whole. But there is no excuse for hateful phone calls, e-mails and forum postings, much less death threats. And certainly not for the Internet posting of the Farbers' home address and phone number. (Nor for the posting of the address and driver's license numbers of the gay couple they turned down.) This is one ugly side of the Internet, its ability with its international reach to magnify the rancid spewings of a relative few. The Farbers shouldn't be going through what they are suffering."
The Garden Guy website says that the company is a member of the Association of Professional Landscape Designers, but that group says that it is not: "APLD does not support discriminating against clients based on sexual orientation. APLD will take steps to see that the former member ceases any representation that he or she continues to be a member of APLD."
The Farbers, whose Garden Guy website quotes scripture and promotes 'traditional' marriage) issued something of an apology on Friday afternoon: "We did not refuse service with malicious intent. We do not hate homosexuals and we are sorry that we hurt [ the gay couple ]. We meant to uphold our right as a small business owner to choose who our clients are. We are humbly sorry for the hurt that it has caused."
Here's the kicker however. The Farbers did nothing illegal (video). While Texas cities Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and El Paso all have ordinances prohibiting discrimnation based on sexual orientation, Houston does not. So while the Farbers' behavior is certainly deplorable and bigoted, it's not illegal. Houston's laws, unfortunately, endorse this kind of bigotry.
Posted 9:16 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Houston, News, Texas | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Mikeb
Maybe they didn't do anything illegal, but would the journalist have commended them for their "principles" if they had decided not to do business with Jews because, after all, they are going to hell?
Posted by: jmg | Oct 23, 2006 12:01:59 PM
"Rick Casey, who covered the story, writes:
"Were I posting, I would commend the Farbers for standing by their principles in an age where money trumps all."
...
Perhaps the journalist deserves some input from us gays?"
Er, JMG... he was being sarcastic - he then tells them to deny services to all sinners - ie. everyone.
Posted by: karashi | Oct 23, 2006 12:02:50 PM
thanks, missed that!
Posted by: jmg | Oct 23, 2006 12:05:57 PM
These people aren't stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing. These types of "Christians" wallow around in victimhood and they are masters at setting themselves up to appear as the innocent victims of their enemies.
Unfortunately but expectedly, many on our side fell for the ploy hook, line and sinker. The Farber’s got EXACTLY the publicity that they were looking for.
It's always interesting to me that when Christians get rude phone calls and emails and death threats from gay people, the mainstream media can't wait to report on it, but when a person stands up for gay rights and subsequently is bombarded with rude/profane phone calls and emails AND death threats BY people claiming to be Christians, the media NEVER reports on it.
And for those who believe that a company should be allowed to choose who they will and will not provide services for/to: Do you believe that people should be allowed to deny services to people based on race, gender and age as well? If not, why not?
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 23, 2006 12:09:28 PM
Here's Casey's full statement:
In this regard I should clarify the ending of my Friday column, which some readers found confusing.
I commended the Farbers for standing by their principles in an age in which money trumps all. The irony of my next two sentences did not shine universally through.
"They might, however, consider climbing up one more rung on the moral ladder.
"They should refuse to do business with all sinners."
That would, of course, radically limit their market since we are all sinners.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 23, 2006 12:12:30 PM
"And for those who believe that a company should be allowed to choose who they will and will not provide services for/to: Do you believe that people should be allowed to deny services to people based on race, gender and age as well? If not, why not?"
Your question feels slippery. "Services" -- medical care, employment protection, housing, etc. -- should be provided to all. Landscaping? We don't have an inherent right to landscaping (regardless of what the crotch-shavers might tell you).
If I choose not to do business with a fundamentalist born-again Christian -- I want to be able to make that kind of decision. And, because I also want to be fair, I need to make sure that the fundamentalist born-again Christian's right not to do business with me -- an athiest gay man of indeterminate pedigree -- is also protected.
What I find reprehensible in this story is the violence against the family in the story. There's nothing wrong with publicizing the landscaper's creed to not do business with homosexuals. They'd probably thank you, since it would stop the wasting of their time turning away business. There is something wrong with forcing these people to put aside their deeply-held personal beliefs in their own private business.
Posted by: Mike B. | Oct 23, 2006 12:20:34 PM
This is tricky.
I would think, that as a smart businessman, you'll do what you're supposed to do: provide a service. The Farbers are like any business owners--you have to deal with people you don't agree with/like all the time. It's called the real world. It's business. I can't stand tons of my bosses in the past--but hey, I need to get paid somehow. If the gay couple had openly attacked the Farbers, that's different. Also, who says that Blacks no longer receive this same treatment? Let's not blindly believe that all bigotry has been shifted to the homosexual sector of society.
And that reporter is a dork. Since when do you inject your personal opinion into basic journalism?
And I agree that some of the responses made to the Farbers are completely unnecessary. You don't fight stupidity and classlessness with the same. Death threats? C'mon?
Posted by: Derrick | Oct 23, 2006 12:22:11 PM
Pretty sure Daddy Farber sucks dick on the side.
Posted by: Tread | Oct 23, 2006 12:40:32 PM
There are a lot of issues here. For example, we don't know for certain that there were "hundreds" of messages or any death threats. We are going on their word.
How many times do gay activists call for boycotts on companies, for example, Macy's and American Airlines this past summer? What if that were made illegal? In practical terms, there is no way to force anyone to spend their free cash in non-discriminatory ways. For example, how do you force anti-semites spend their money at a Jewish deli instead of an Italian or German deli? And would such a policy be wise in the first place?
Then there are taxes. This is non-free cash where the govt. spends money on our behalf. And how much of your money would you spend on right-wing faith-based-initiatives? Well, you have no choice in the matter. Is this somehow better than free cash situations? You are also funding the war in Iraq, CIA detention centers, etc. How many wish they were not or did not have to? What if we could vote for govt. policy with our tax dollars rather than for just candidates?
Then we have the darwinian qualities of the marketplace. The Farbers may be excellent Christians (by some reckoning), but bad business owners. A non-discriminatory Landscaping company will outperform them in the market and put the Farbers out of business. The market tends towards non-discrimination because in general it is the most sensible approach. There may be market niches where discrimination helps business, but that's typically a rich/poor thing rather than race/religion/s.o. thing.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 23, 2006 12:46:09 PM
"What I find reprehensible in this story is the violence against the family in the story." WHAT violence, you self-loathing loon? Mike B., you put the ass in asinine. And you do far more "violence" to legal and ethical concepts—and common sense—than a pit bull to a rag doll.
Posted by: Leland | Oct 23, 2006 12:47:48 PM
Thanks for investigating this Andy! When I was forwarded the original email thread I was so angry. Thanks also for clarifying the legal issues. It sucks to live in a country where you can be denied services based on predjudices. I knew the APLD would distance themselves from this guy.Clearly from the photo even Sabrina's hairdresser is a straight woman! Poor Sabrina seems a little threatened. Perhaps good old Todd has been going on a lot of "fishing trips" with his "buddy" & not returning with any fish. Todd does have a kind of hot "Daddy" look. Just remember to VOTE on Nov. 7th everybody!
Posted by: thegaygardener | Oct 23, 2006 1:06:19 PM
Equating being gay with being black, or Jewish, or disabled or fat or of Albanian ancestry is immaterial. It is legal to discriminate against gay people.
Mike B: In Texas you cannot refuse to provide any service, the provision for which you have a license, to a fundamentalist born-again Christian (or a fundamentalist Muslim, for that matter). You can’t refuse to provide that service to any of the others I listed. You can provide such a service to gay people. Additionally, sexual orientation is specifically exempted from any protection for housing…so a gay person can be refused a rental or a mortgage.
Leland: I thought I put the ass in asinine...you told me I did months ago. Seriously, sir, why is it necessary for you to attack Mike B? Violence takes many forms and Mike B., correctly in my view, understands e-mail abuse, unsolicited hate remarks and explicit threats as violence. Calling him a "self-loathing loon" is downright shameful and warrants an apology. Mike B. may have a thick skin, but such attacks (is this called "flaming") should not be tolerated.
Posted by: JT | Oct 23, 2006 1:17:19 PM
Leland,
You know, I normally agree wholeheartedly with your posts. But I have to disagree with you here. I think Mike B. is right. The Farber's are entitled to their opinions, however despicable.
I think it is terrible that they had to endure verbal harrassment and threats of violence because of their beliefs. Now, don't get me wrong...they beliefs are disgusting! I hope the Farbers go out of business because of this. I hope they lose everything. But when we start tolerating verbal harrassement and threats of violence because someone isn't thinking 'correctly', then we've opened it up for *anyone* to be harrassed and threatened for thoughts/beliefs, including us! And when we start attacking them, then we've stooped to their level. Hell, we've gone below their level.
I say tell the world what bigots the Farbers are. Boycott their business. Stage protests in front of their office. Make anyone who tries to enter their business uncomfortable simply with your presence (not with threats). Write letters to the newspaper that reported on this story. But don't harrass and threaten. It gets us nowhere.
xo
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 23, 2006 1:25:33 PM
"Mike B. may have a thick skin..."
Look, I'll tell you what I told the gals at Weight Watchers: I. Like. Cake.
"In Texas you cannot refuse to provide any service, the provision for which you have a license, to a fundamentalist born-again Christian (or a fundamentalist Muslim, for that matter). You can’t refuse to provide that service to any of the others I listed. You can provide such a service to gay people. Additionally, sexual orientation is specifically exempted from any protection for housing…so a gay person can be refused a rental or a mortgage."
I'm drawing a distinction between municipal services and "lifestyle" services. Due to a wacky turn of events that involved an ex-boyfriend and The Little Mermaid, I found myself trying to find a recording studio that could dub out the vocals on Ursula the Sea Witch's song so that the aforementioned ex-boyfriend could perform it in a cabaret. One of the folks I went to was pretty visible with his faith -- including his love of unborn fetuses. I ended up not using him. I didn't want to support someone anti-choice.
I would hate to be in a situation where I would have to utilize the services of someone I disagreed with -- especially in a luxury case like that. Likewise, I would like to feel that I, as a business owner -- let's say I own a copy shop outright, and not a franchise -- could choose not to print flyers for hate groups and Republicans. I would like to have that right, as a business owner.
Protecting my freedoms sometimes means that I have to protect the freedoms of those I don't agree with. It's uncomfortable, but I think that's how the rules are written.
Posted by: Mike B. | Oct 23, 2006 1:42:37 PM
The response of the person called Mike B is astonishing that a gay person in 2006 would meekly accept such discrimination as normal. I suppose Mike, you'd also meekly turn away from a shop or restaurant if it had "STRAIGHTS ONLY" on the door, and take it as their right?
Posted by: Bongo | Oct 23, 2006 1:56:55 PM
Thank you, Peter. And I hope you're having a lovely Michigan autumn, JT. But I stand by my rebuttal. In his earlier post, Mike B. wrote, "I don't think the Christian heterosexual couple in this story did anything wrong." That's an asinine, offensive statement to me, which, by definition, reflects the writer. Then he amplified that by writing that, in essence, he did not find it reprehensible—which he has a right to but I have a right to find that, and, therefore, him reprehensible. He didn't refer to "symbolic" violence, he equated verbal assault with physical assault. Again, he has a right to such OPINION but leaving unchallenged that lack of nuance and fact is far more counterproductive to our progress than my epithets. "Even gay bloggers are saying that the devout Christians were wronged and physically attacked."
Add to that his sophomoric interpretations what is/should be illegal based on what HE finds acceptable; his definitions of "private business," etc., and WE should
be offended, not him.
Note, too, I never even said that I supported their being harassed. I only challenged its reckless mischaracterization. I never said the Farbers aren't entitled to their opinions or beliefs. I only say, or rather the law, in some places, e.g., California's Unruh law, says, they can't discriminate against people as a result of it. Whether on not Texas has similar laws, I don't know. All I know, or believe, is that to defend bigots' bigotted behavior, as Mike B. did, makes him an ass. We're back, as we so often are, to civility trumping civil rights and I refuse to accept that. Their "punishment" MIGHT not fit the level of the "crime," but that is a separate issue of whether or not there was a "crime." Mike B's attempt to dismiss the gay couple's objections, that is, any objection of any kind, based on "inherent right" or relative seriousness [thanks for not describing "silly pansies getting their panties in a bunch over a bunch of petunias"] is also beside the point.
Posted by: Leland | Oct 23, 2006 2:09:12 PM
Dear Sabrina,
Your kid in the yellow shirt is definitely queer. Best of luck dealing with that!
All my best,
Posted by: stevo | Oct 23, 2006 2:21:26 PM
MikeB., you cleverly avoided answering my question by answering a question I didn't ask. I honestly have no idea what the heck "municipal services" vs. "lifestyle services" means. Nondiscrimination laws generally cover all service providers, with a few stated exceptions like churches.
Let me ask re-ask it in a more direct way.
Do you believe that private business owners should be allowed to deny selling to or providing service to customers based upon the customers' RACE, SEX/GENDER or advanced AGE? If so, do you believe that existing state and local nondiscrimination laws that make discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. should be abolished?
I notice that the religious people who rail against sexual orientation being a protected class NEVER ask for the removal of religion from these nondiscrimination policies. If they did, I might take them more seriously.
Leland, you're causing ears and minds to close again. Presentation, presentation, presentation.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 23, 2006 2:26:33 PM
Mike B: If you are a person seeking a particular service (btw after looking at the photo of Chad White, I'm thinking of a particular service I might be interested in), you have every right to refuse to accept the service FROM a provider. It doesn't work the other way around for providers giving services TO protected classes...and birth-gender (transsexuals are not protected in Texas), weight, religion, national origin etc. ARE protected in GWB's home state.
I think the only time you can refuse to provide a service to a protected class is if the service, itself, intrudes on a protected class...like the hate-speech example you gave.
Leland: I'm having a drearily dismal day in the middle of the mitt. Sorry, dear, but you’ve either been working out too much (hence the elevated testosterone causing excessive aggression) or you’ve been listening to the collected works of Jesse Helms on CD again (that always makes you snippy). Whatever the case, I do think you’re being unusually harsh today.
Posted by: JT | Oct 23, 2006 2:33:33 PM
Ah, let's boycott the Farbers?? Isn't that taken care of already?
How many TV shows (their advertisers really) have been boycotted by Christian groups because of gay themes?
If the Farbers had said, "oh we don't do business with black people" they would be out of business shortly from the publicity. Let's see what happens with them in this case.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 23, 2006 2:37:54 PM
DEAR LORD: I AM APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR TIME IN PRAYER TODAY, AND GLAD THAT YOU CONTACTED US...I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT WE CANNOT MEET WITH YOU BECAUSE WE CHOOSE NOT TO FOLLOW YOUR SON'S TENANTS OF LOVING EVERYONE...BEST OF LUCK IN FINDING SOMEONE ELSE TO SPREAD YOUR SON'S GOSPEL OF LOVE...ALL MY BEST, SABRINA.
Posted by: CLIFF | Oct 23, 2006 2:48:32 PM
Anon, I'm a bit perplexed as to how gay people can boycott a business that refuses to do business with gay people.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 23, 2006 2:50:00 PM
While I do not doubt that the Farbers have received many, many emails and calls criticizing them for their bigoted business practices I have a hard time believing that more than a handful of them were "death threats". Those are out of bounds in my book, but short of a death threat everything else goes!
These people made a stupid decision. Perhaps there are enough moonbats in Houston to keep them employed so that they never ever have to work for gays and lesbians again, but I doubt it.
Look, like us or not, our money is just as green and spends as well as everyone else's. The gay couple who sought them out didn't discriminate against their religious beliefs.... they simply wanted their property landscaped!
The Farbers should make a decision: Are we in business to make money or are we in business to make political points?
Posted by: Jonathon | Oct 23, 2006 3:05:47 PM
"I make decisions similar to the Farber's all the time. I choose not to do business with right wing Republicans; I avoid anti-choice organizations and organizations that support anti-choice legislation..."
Are you speaking as a service provider or a customer here? I don't know where you live, but if you're speaking as the former, you might very well find yourself in violation of your state or local law my friend.
"If I choose not to do business with a fundamentalist born-again Christian -- I want to be able to make that kind of decision." MARK B.
You can "want" in one hand and spit in the other Mark B. but you would be breaking the law in 99% of the country.
Doesn't it bother you that the same group that is protected against discrimination based on their religious beliefs, hides behind those protected beliefs in order to discriminate against others?
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 23, 2006 3:11:12 PM
Freedom has to include the freedom to make decisions that others find repugnant. Being free to make only those decisions that everyone approves of isn't freedom at all.
I choose not to patronize Exxon because they rescinded Mobile's sexual orientation anti-discrimination policy when they acquired that company. I don't know whether the Farbers would find that choice repugnant, but I'm sure glad they can't take it away from me by legal means. And I don't want to take away their freedom of choice, either.
The attitude displayed by some people here seems to boil down to: "Other people should have the freedom to make any decision that I agree with." And as a member of a sexual miniority, I'll stand up against that attitude every time.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 23, 2006 3:29:41 PM