Adamson, for his part, has respectfully responded that his company “employs and conducts business with people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences and national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the prerogative of the company to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.”
But the bottom line in this juxtaposition of Tolerance 101 and Hands On Originals is that the former would certainly be extended a broader degree of freedom and professional discretion than the latter. Tolerance 101 might even get kudos for its “courageous” stand against “bigotry” and its supporters would be quick to proclaim that the First Amendment protects Tolerance 101 from being punished for refusing to promote a viewpoint with which it disagrees. This duplicity is widely known but rarely addressed. And it allows homosexual activists to have their cake and eat it too, while condemning those who refuse to go along with the agenda.
It is the prerogative of a business owner to decline to aid in promoting a message that he cannot in good conscience promote. And this prerogative belongs to all business owners, whether they agree with the demands of those pushing a particular social agenda or not.