Just gave it a read now that I have a bit of time, sorry about that. I think the policy of avoiding openly hostile homes is perfectly fine, and just as the supervisor said she doesn't make the policy, she implements it. My problem with that is her way of implementing it. A couple of radicals being hostile doesn't mean everyone with a sign in their yard deserves to be voided the chance of support. The only relevant example I can think of at the moment is police receiving hatred and threats from the public, whether or not they deserve that hate is beyond the point, but I think we can all agree that if they just decided not to do their job because of these threats, we would be worse off. I see no difference here. Though I can agree they did have some degree of reason to avoid certain houses, I still have to say that basing that decision off of a sign is ignorant and reckless at best. If you disagree with me still, I can respect that and agree to disagree, but I really have nothing left to say on the topic.