Let me start off by saying I agree with that completely. That wasn't how I interpreted your post that I paraphrased earlier, and maybe I misinterpreted. It felt, when I read it the first time, that it was intentionally left ambiguous to possibly include Jenn and I. So I appreciate your clarification.
I thought saying "those who are offended shouldn't own snakes" was close enough in meaning to "If someone is offended by snakes biting, than perhaps snakes are not for them in the first place." Sort of like saying "those who are allergic to peanuts shouldn't eat peanut butter cookies" is close enough in meaning to "If someone is allergic to peanuts, than perhaps peanut butter cookies are not for them in the first place".
I think maybe what made it sound completely different was taking away all the context? I dunno. Anyway, I do appreciate your clarification of what you meant.