February 23, 2012

"Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage."

Is there anything wrong with that?

112 comments:

John said...

Nope.

Joe Schmoe said...

Nope also. Free country.

Isn't it?

Jaske said...

Only if a straight Christian can refuse.

Defense of lassiez faire vs regulation to follow.

Rialby said...

If a straight Christian refused someone service they would be hit so fast with a discrimination suit their head would spin right off their shoulders.

Expat(ish) said...

I was going to suggest that had this been a race based decision then it would certainly be a costly mistake.

-XC

Joe Schmoe said...

This lede isn't leading at all, is it?
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez needs a new hairdresser — or a new stance on gay marriage.

Quite the Hobson's choice the writer has crafted.

Chip S. said...

It's simply prudent not to get your hair cut by someone holding a grudge against you.

Of course, it's also prudent not to drive away a segment of your customers in order to indulge your own political views.

Andy R. said...

On the one hand, who wants a bigot as a client?

On the other hand, how would people feel if a hair salon would refuse service to all black clients?

I see refusing someone opposed to same-sex marriage as the equivalent of refusing a member of the KKK and refusing a gay person the same as refusing a black person. I'm not sure what the law has to say about all of this, but as a social matter I think more and more people are agreeing with me, which is good for the gays and bad for the anti-gay bigots.

Moose said...

I think it's OK for hair stylists to be gay.

Michael E. Lopez said...

Wrong? I don't think so, but anyone who believes that businesses should have to cater to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, etc. should think there's something wrong with this.

Ideological consistency has never been the human strong suit, though.

Andy R. said...

I don't think so, but anyone who believes that businesses should have to cater to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, etc. should think there's something wrong with this.

Is being an anti-gay bigot a race, color, or creed? Do anti-gay bigots need to be protected from discrimination in our society?

Chip S. said...

I see refusing someone opposed to same-sex marriage as the equivalent of refusing a member of the KKK and refusing a gay person the same as refusing a black person.

How convenient for you.

Chuck66 said...

Actually can there be a civil rights lawsuit against the hairstylist?

Remember what happened in Phx? A wedding photographer refused to photograph a homosexual wedding, so the gov't went after her.

It goes both ways. The governor is a victim of discrimination.

Chuck66 said...

Seriously, can a Christian refuse service to a homosexual?

Joe Schmoe said...

AndyR, instead of being refused, you want to be the one doing the refusing. That's not equality; that's inverting what you think is the established heirarchy.

Chuck66 said...

"Do anti-gay bigots need to be protected from discrimination in our society?"

I am not going to retype the list...but the list is quite large of attacks on anti-gay activists.

Dave said...

Seems like he could have done a lot more with his access to the governor.

Lyssa said...

If this is OK, would it be OK to refuse service to a prominant Islamic person, say, a spokesperson for CAIR, because you are offended by not necessarily Islam itself, but the positions taken by CAIR in relation to Islam?

(I say yes.)

Andy R. said...

The governor is a victim of discrimination.

Does anyone have enough legal knowledge to determine if there is a distinction between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against anti-gay bigots?

TMink said...

Her perogative.

The governor will take her business elsewhere.

But true enough, try to be a Christian and say, oppose your money being used to murder the unborn.

Trey

Chuck66 said...

Andy, how about discriminating against anti-Catholic bigots? That would be 2/3rd of the Democrat party.

Chip S. said...

Does anyone have enough legal knowledge to determine if there is a distinction between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against anti-gay bigots?

IANAL, but I do know what the term "loaded question" means.

Which reminds me to ask: When are you going to stop slandering those who dare to disagree with you?

Robert said...

Lessee........

Governor's name is Martinez.

Why, clearly that stylist is racist. Isn't that what the last four years have taught us? That we can't disagree on policy, and objections to those in office are solely race-based?

edutcher said...

Prolly did her a favor. the lovely Governor is a rising star in the Republican Party and, if she were to run for higher office, the Lefty media would make a big deal out of it.

Andy R. said...

On the one hand, who wants a bigot as a client?

Her money's as green as anybody else's.

PS Wait till people like Hatman get their way.

You'll be subject to arrest for heterosexual kissing in public.

paul a'barge said...

"Heterosexual religious hair stylist drops gay client because the client supports gay marriage".

see?

MadisonMan said...

Wouldn't it have been better just to give her a butch haircut?

Chase said...

There's a double standard in New Mexico:

(Are ya listenin' Andy R)

New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.

Lyssa said...

Does anyone have enough legal knowledge to determine if there is a distinction between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against anti-gay bigots?

Discrimination is an overused and misunderstood term. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not wrong and is necessary. We all discriminated by coming to this blog this morning, as opposed to another. The salon presumably discriminates against people who can't afford whatever it charges. The steakhouse discriminates against vegetarians and the vegetarians discriminate against meat.

Illegal discrimination varies by jurisdiction, but usually covers discriminating on the basis of some protected charactoristic. Federally, it's race, sex, and religion, but for some states, it's more. Federal law does not prohibit discrimination against people for their sexual orientation, and only a few states do (I doubt that AZ is one of them). At least one state has some restrictions on discriminating against people of certain political persuasions, but it's very limited (think more hate crimes and, I think, employment)and I doubt that it would apply here (and I doubt that it would pass a 1st Amendment challenge if it did).

Therefore, yes, if you own a business and choose not to cater to gays, it's discrimination, but it's probably not illegal, depending on the state. It's also discrimination, but probably not illegal or even necessarily wrong, to refuse to cater to people who hold a political beleif with which you disagree in any or almost any jurisdiction.

Chuck66 said...

Male hairstylist refuses service to Latina woman of color.

He sounds like a racist to me.

paul a'barge said...

His name is Antonio Darden and he runs Antonio's Hair Salon in Santa Fe, New Mexico and click here is his picture.

Remember the face of bigotry and act accordingly.

Paddy O said...

Martyrdom is significantly less intense here in the ol' US.

"I oppose gay marriage! Here I stand!" she declares, her hair no longer well-coifed, indeed slightly limp and colorless.

Lyssa said...

(Oh, I practice some employment law and have a basic understanding of discrimination laws, though not in AZ.)

Andy R. said...

There's a double standard in New Mexico:


It's only a double standard if we think gay people and anti-gay bigots should be held to the same standard.

I can't figure out if the commenters here think businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate based on any factors, or should be able to discriminate based on any factors?

Telling a business that they can't turn away a neo-nazi seem a little odd. but saying that businesses can turn away black people also seems odd.

Tank said...

Andy R is VERY concerned about bigots, but he never answered the question about whether he favors colleges discriminating against white people.

That is because he is a racist.

Yes, the thought police like Andy R are everywhere. Ooooooh, a bad thought.

Paddy O said...

We all know that "opposing same-sex marriage" is just code language for discrimination against primarily Catholic hispanics.

Lyssa said...

I would feel comfortable refusing to offer legal services to Andy R. because of his bigoted views towards Christians.

Chuck66 said...

Andy R, if the state of Mexico can try to arrest a female Christian (or Muslim) wedding photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding, then why shouldn't they arrest the homosexual hairstyist who refused service to a female Hispanic Christian woman?

It is actually worse, as the photographer didn't refuse to serve a person because he was a homosexual, she refused to photograph an activity that she disapproved of. The hairstyist refused to serve a person, not an activity.

Lem said...

If that is a picture of the governor on the link then the governor should get a new hair stylist.

Lyssa said...

Where did I get Arizona from? New Mexico, is what I meant.

Andy R. said...

Andy R is VERY concerned about bigots, but he never answered the question about whether he favors colleges discriminating against white people.

Reread my last comment in that thread.

Andy R. said...

It sure is sweet hearing all the oppressed Christian anti-gay bigots whining about how bad they have it in America because there are consequences for their bigotry.

"People won't cut our hair because we're bigots. Waaah!"

Chip S. said...

AndyR, Repetition of a fallacious argument is an excellent way to get people to ignore you. Don't mistake a decline in counterarguments with successful persuasion on your part.

You've become a complete bore.

Hagar said...

Because the one group agrees with Andy R, and the other group does not. Ergo, they are the enemy.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

There's a double standard in New Mexico:

It's only a double standard if we think gay people and anti-gay bigots should be held to the same standard.


Another Lefty who doesn't like the concept of Equal Justice Under Law.

Kell Sir Prize.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Is being an anti-gay bigot a race, color, or creed? Do anti-gay bigots need to be protected from discrimination in our society


Except being opposed to same sex marriage does not make one an "anti-gay bigot"

There are gays who are opposed to same sex marriage, you idiot.
Additionally, being gay is an activity, being black is inate.

Moron.

traditionalguy said...

Occupy Hair Salons is organizing as we speak.

Will interior designers join in and together bring traditional marriage to its knees?

Andy R. said...

Additionally, being gay is an activity, being black is inate.

Good luck with that argument. You lose, although you appear not to have realized it yet.

Hagar said...

Mr. Darden also referred to the governor as a "Mexican" and not meant in a good way.

So, Mr Andy, how do you feel about that?

Salamandyr said...

Depends on what you mean by "wrong". Do I think the hairdresser was wrong to do this?

Yes, I think it was wrong to allow a political difference to intrude on a completely unrelated part of their lives.

Do I think that we should have some kind of legal censure when someone does something like this? No. This is a free country; you can be a damned fool if you want to.

Mike said...

My my my. Andy R is being a one trick pony.

He thinks it's fine that Antonio will not cut the governor's hair because she's opposed to gay marriage.

But Andy would get his tighty whiteys in a terrible knot if I suggested that a straight guy might not want Antonio as a barber.

Frankly I think it's no big deal either way. If Antonio doesn't want to cut the governor's hair, she can find another hairdresser. And if I don't want to go to Antonio's salon (I mean there are a whole buncha guys who would never go to a female hairdressing salon--but also a whole bunch who will) then Antonio will simply have to find another customer.

Chuck66 said...

"Do I think that we should have some kind of legal censure when someone does something like this? No. This is a free country; you can be a damned fool if you want to."

I don't think either one should have the law go after them, but....

The point some of us are making is that the State of New Mexico prosecuted a photographer because she refused to photograph an activity she dissaproved of....a homosexual wedding.

So to be consistant, the state has to prosecute this man, because he refused service to an individual (not an action)...a female Hispanic Christian. Again, he didn't refuse to take part in an acitivty, he refused refused service to someone just because of her background.

Tank said...

Andy R. said...
Andy R is VERY concerned about bigots, but he never answered the question about whether he favors colleges discriminating against white people.

Reread my last comment in that thread.


And, unless I missed it, you still have not answered the question.

Yes or no?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Additionally, being gay is an activity, being black is inate.

Good luck with that argument. You lose, although you appear not to have realized it yet.


Until they can prove that "gay gene", Hatman needs the good luck.

Christopher in MA said...

So Darden admits to having cut the governor's hair three times, and only then decided he couldn't stomach her position. Which raises questions:

- Did he know her position beforehand and have no trouble accepting her as a client until he realized he could pimp his refusal out as a 'brave stand?'

- As well, did Martinez know he was gay (with a male hairdresser, such an assumption wouldn't be widely off the mark)? And if she did, how does that fit in with Hat's 'anti-gay' nonsense?

Personally, I would love to see some enterprising reporter (yes, I can dream) ask those questions.

And, Hat, one would think that such an intelligent fellow as you profess to be would realize that one can have principled objections to SSM while simultaneously being supportive and respective of gays, but you've repeatedly demonstrated your mulishness and invincible ignorance so many times before that it's a fool's errand to have any reasonable exchange of ideas with you.

Thorley Winston said...

No, I think that human relations should be voluntary and if the hairdresser was so bigoted that he couldn’t stand to do business with someone who disagreed with him on an issue irrelevant to his job, they’re probably both better off if she finds someone more professional and less intolerant to do her hair in the future.

MadisonMan said...

The point some of us are making is that the State of New Mexico prosecuted a photographer because she refused to photograph an activity she dissaproved of....a homosexual wedding.

I think it's ridiculous that the photographer was fined (was the fine ever appealed?).

Why did the photographer didn't say she had to have her hair cut the day the lesbians wanted the picture done is a mystery to me. But now it's clearer: She couldn't find someone to cut her hair.

Hagar said...

@Lyssa,

Don't feel bad; we are used to it.
(Google: "One of our fifty is missing.")
Though Arizona used to be just the "Rub' al Khali" of New Mexico, an empty space between the Rio Grande valley and California (though a number of Indian nations would beg to differ), Arizona today undeniably has a much larger population, is more in the news, besides all those saguaro images and having a much catchier name.

kimsch said...

Any business ought to be able to refuse service to anyone based on any reason at all without fear of lawsuits.

The gay hairdresser has every right to refuse to cut the Governor's hair for any reason he wishes. He is free to proclaim those reasons from the rooftops.

I am free to see that he is refusing to cut the Governor's hair and the reasons he is proclaiming for that action.

I can then either choose to avail myself of his services because I agree with him or decide to stay away from his establishment because I don't agree with him. Or maybe I don't care and so don't either boycott or buycott his establishment.

The Gov't has said that a business open to the public is a "public accomodation" and has restricted a business' rights to do decide exactly who to do business with. That is why the photographer was sued and fined for not wanting to photograph a same-sex committment ceremony.

Word will get around about a business and its practices. People will agree, disagree, or just not care. If there aren't enough people that agree or don't care the company won't have enough business to remain in business. The market will decide.

I'm sure there are people who seek out a business just to be a "victim" of discrimination so they can force the business to do something it would prefer not to.

The First Amendment preserves our rights to free association as well as speech and religion. We are free to associate with whom we will and free to decide that we don't want to associate with others.

Salamandyr said...

The point some of us are making is that the State of New Mexico prosecuted a photographer because she refused to photograph an activity she dissaproved of....a homosexual wedding.

Agreed; if New Mexico law requires such, it requires such, even if I think in this case the law is a ass.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Hey Andy

Why do you support an anti gay bigot for President? You must really hate the gays.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Good luck with that argument. You lose, although you appear not to have realized it yet


It isn't an "argument" it is fact.

What exactly did I lose?

Jay said...

But Andy would get his tighty whiteys in a terrible knot if I suggested that a straight guy might not want Antonio as a barber.


Right.

Or better yet, based on gay wittle Andy's comments here, I'm sure he would be just dandy with a barber who refuses gay customers.

Hagar said...

And the photographer was NOT arrested and prosecuted by the State of New Mexico.
It was a case of a gay activist charging the photographer before the N.M. Human Rights Commission, and the Commission levied a fine for violation of its dicta.
The Commission apparently is empowered by law to levy such fines, and if the defendant refuses to pay, the Commission can then presumably demand that the A.G.'s office prosecute.

sonicfrog said...

On the one hand, the hairstylist has the right to drop a client for what ever reason, within reason, of course. But, for this?

Now, if the roles were reversed, and the hair stylist was straight and opposed same sex marriage, and the client was gay and was for it... Yes, I know I'm in alternate universe territory here... Well, I don't have to tell you what kind of hell there would be.

PS. We were discussing a topic along similar lines over at Gay Patriot yesterday, concerning an op-ed in the LA Times, where the writer of the piece, a liberal, after discovering that her neighbors, and friends, were also Tea Party members, ended their friendship. She just couldn't understand how they could possibly be Tea Party members!....

Oh, did I forget to mention that the neighbors were a racially mixed married couple?

PS. God, the "New and Improved" captia verification process sucks!

I Callahan said...

Until they can prove that "gay gene", Hatman needs the good luck.

Let's take that to another logical conclusion. Say there is a gay gene, and it's discovered that through amniocentesis, you can find out if your unborn child has the gay gene.

Want to see a large left-wing contingent switch their views on abortion overnight?

The Crack Emcee said...

Who'd want a hater doing your hair?

Nope, perfectly fine, and the governor should be happy to find out before hand.

MadisonMan said...

The Commission apparently is empowered by law to levy such fines, and if the defendant refuses to pay, the Commission can then presumably demand that the A.G.'s office prosecute.

Did the photographer pay the fine? I never heard how this case ended.

Matthew said...

"Now, if the roles were reversed, and the hair stylist was straight and opposed same sex marriage, and the client was gay and was for it."

What if both parties were heterosexual, one just happened to be for, the other against, the issue at hand?

Would that then be OK? Is it only wrong to deny someone who is homosexual? What if they are a Log Cabin Republican or other such who is also against gay marriage (at least, I think they were? I get things confused).

What if the hair dresser had been heterosexual?

What ideas are we allowed to turn people away for (belief homosexual marriage should not be government sanctioned) and what can't we (being an atheist or any variant of theist)?

Hagar said...

And the N.M. Human Rights Commission consists of a blue ribbon panel of 11 citizens appointed by the Governor('s Office), so you can see how this works.

chickenlittle said...

My stars! what an interesting monster you are Governor Martinez...here, let me fix you up: link

Nathan Alexander said...

@i Callahan,
Of course they wouldn't change their views and advocacy of abortion. Liberals have no problem being hypocrites, talking out both sides of their mouths, double standards, and self-contradictory views.
They only truly believe whatever fits the narrative of the moment.

phx said...

What do you mean by wrong?
I think it makes things too personal. Sure it's an exercise of liberty. Liberty isn't the only value for a human being.

Tank said...

I see Andy ran away. He can't figure out how to be in favor of discriminating against white people without being called a racist.

I can't figure that out either.

Ah, the world is upside down. I'm in favor of freedom. Individuals free to discriminate as we choose (not gov't). But that's not the current thing. Nope, we all gotta tell each other what to say, think and do.

Saint Croix said...

Here's an interesting NPR article on the clash between homosexuality and religion.

The NPR tone kind of reminds me of Obama forcing the Catholic church to subsidize contraception.

It's leftists telling churches they better get with the program.

What's so annoying about the left to me is how ideologicial they are, and how they are willing to destroy anything that gets in their way.

For instance, there's nothing in our Constitution about sex.

Nothing.

But religion is specifically protected.

And yet here is our government telling churches they have to change their theology to suit the government.

That's fucked up.

Much of the gay rights movement strikes me as totalitarian.

For instance, outing gays against their will. Forcing them out into the public.

If I did that, would it not be evil?

But gay people do it to gay people. It's fascist. Utterly disrespectful of a person's dignity and privacy.

Or gay people violating a church service in order to protest.

Or gay people wearing dildos out on the street.

Obviously this is a small number of gay people who act this way. But stuff like this--and a general antipathy towards gay sex--is why gay rights has never caught on in this country.

It seems to me that gay marriage is another attempt to normalize homosexuality. It's another protest. But it's been far more successful than any other previous protest.

Because people, in general, like love and marriage. So homosexuals are co-opting marriage in order to get approval for homosexuality.

The problem with this is that in our society, a lot of marriages are religious in character. It's religious approval of sex.

So, in order to do this, the government has to force the church to approve of this particular type of sex.

I think this violates our Constitution, and our history of religious freedom.

It could also backfire for gay people. It's confrontational, and when you do that, you create enemies. You might undo decades of tolerance of homosexuality in our society.

Look at Europe, for instance. It was very tolerant of homosexuality. And now it's very Islamic.

All I'm saying is that it might be a better idea to find another wedding photographer, another hair stylist, and shut up about how everybody has to agree with you.

Hagar said...

@MM,

and you never will.

This works by setting the fines (by whatever name, I think this was mostly "court" costs) just high enough not to be worth fighting, especially since the business already is hurting from beingtrashed in the media.

Saint Croix said...

That link is broken. Try this one.

phx said...

All I'm saying is that it might be a better idea to find another wedding photographer, another hair stylist, and shut up about how everybody has to agree with you.

Less is more. This is enough no?

sonicfrog said...

Someone mentioned the "gay gene".

Just a couple of points to ponder on that. Eye color was one of the first and obvious pieces of evidence used to show that there were genetic / inherited traits, which helped prove there were genes.

That was about 150 years ago.

Only with in the last decade have the genes that control eye color been identified. And there are apparently six that have a direct influence on eye color.

Second - There are many variations to eye color. Though there are deep shades of brown and blue eyes, the scope of colors vary wildly. Hair color and type is also dependent on many combinations of genes. In other words, traits inherited, things passed on from one generation to the next, are most often not nearly as simple as one gene controls them all. So, talk of "a gay gene" is silly. There are probably a combination that affects sexuality.

Oh, and exactly what the hell eye color is hazel anyway???? :-)

PS. I have hazel eyes, and the color seems to change depending on the environment! It's a trick of optics where the reflection of certain colors make my eyes appear bluer or greyer or darker etc.

Saint Croix said...

Less is more. This is enough no?

Thank God a woman has never had to say that to me.

I think more is more.

But this is a quickie.

Geoff Matthews said...

Can the hispanics refuse service because of immigration enforcement?

I've no problem with this decision, as long as people have the right to refuse service to supporters of same-sex marriage.

Paco Wové said...

"...telling churches they have to change their theology to suit the government."

When government becomes your religion, the whole "separation of church and state" problem vanishes.

kimsch said...

Sonic - you must have the rarer* blue-gray hazel. More common are the brown-green hazel eyes. I have the blue-gray hazels, my husband and one son have the brown-green hazels, another son has straight blue, and my daughter has blue eyes with golden flecks near the pupil.

*rarer because I don't see as many of the blue-gray combo as I do of the brown-green combo.

Mike said...

My gay hair stylist voted for Prop 8 here and told me he doesn't want the right to get married. That would be too much pressure on him.

Really!

Methadras said...

Andy R(etard) the fluffer quips...

On the one hand, who wants a bigot as a client?


How is the governor a bigot? If someone opposes something, that makes them a bigot? I can tell you on the end of my pinky nail why you are a moron, but let's go on shall we.

On the other hand, how would people feel if a hair salon would refuse service to all black clients?

In all fairness that should be their right to do, but you see because people like you, who are looking for government sanction as a function of government compulsion to accept your deviancy, the owners or employees of that hair salon would be compelled by law to not refuse said service to black clients. They can do it as a matter of reality, but the reaction would be a swift and immediate federal lawsuit from DOJ most likely and a civil lawsuit by the offended denied black clientele. Again, your question is stupid, like you, because you are a reactionary douche.

I see refusing someone opposed to same-sex marriage as the equivalent of refusing a member of the KKK and refusing a gay person the same as refusing a black person.

That's because you are perceiving such equivalent refusals through your sperm covered glasses. Again, this is why you are a complete and utter tool. You are equating homosexuality to race. Unless you are going to try and make the claim of which race or ethnicity has homosexuals in it. In which case that would be perceived as racist or bigoted. Moron.

I'm not sure what the law has to say about all of this,

Of course you don't because you're an idiot. There is no law, currently that says a homosexual can deny service to a heterosexual on political disagreement grounds.

but as a social matter I think more and more people are agreeing with me, which is good for the gays and bad for the anti-gay bigots.

If I oppose homosexual marriage and yet I don't have an issue with homosexuality does that make me an anti-gay bigot?

phx said...

"I don't want liberty. That would be too much pressure on me. Neither should anyone else have it."

MadisonMan said...

I also have hazel eyes. They are the same greenish hazel as my wife's.

We have one kid with blue eyes, one with brown.

Hooray for hazel eyes!

Saint Croix said...

Here's the left: "Homosexuals can't help their sexuality, and everybody has to accept it."

Note this argument uses force twice. Gay people are forced to be gay. They can't switch, grow, change, or change back.

And religious people are forced to think a certain way.

DADvocate said...

Do you know how hard it is to find a male stylist who isn't gay? Really hard. Really, really hard.

Had he been smart he would continue to do her hair, befriend her and use subtle, small talk to persuade her to change her mind. As it is, he's created a set back for pro-same sex marriage. He's alienated the governor and anyone who supports her position as well as those who believe he's discriminating based on religion.

DADvocate said...

We are free to associate with whom we will and free to decide that we don't want to associate with others.

Not in the business world if your decisions are based on race, religion, gender, age or national origin.

Thorley Winston said...

Had he been smart he would continue to do her hair, befriend her and use subtle, small talk to persuade her to change her mind. As it is, he's created a set back for pro-same sex marriage. He's alienated the governor and anyone who supports her position as well as those who believe he's discriminating based on religion.

Agreed the hairdresser is not only a bigot but he let his bigotry blind himself to an obvious way to help the cause he purports to believe in.

phx said...

Agreed the hairdresser is not only a bigot but he let his bigotry blind himself to an obvious way to help the cause he purports to believe in.

That's a pretty expansive definition of bigotry you got there. And I used to think Democrats were sensitive.

phx said...

So if the stylist lost an opportunity maybe the governor can do some reaching out to the stylist himself and win some good will.

kimsch said...

Dad,

Not in the business world if your decisions are based on race, religion, gender, age or national origin.

I know. And that's unconstitutional. It also relies quite a bit on discerning someone's thoughts versus what they might say.

This hairdresser has come out and said what he thinks. But what if "fired" the Governor as a client and stated some innocuous reason? Would we still insist that he's fired her for her stance on gay marriage?

Case in point: I am disabled - have a leg brace, use a cane. When I got married almost 14 years ago now, we went to a florist to order flowers. They refused to take me on as a customer.

They said it was because my wedding was set for the day before Mothers' Day (I went to order flowers about this time of the year - well in advance).

It could have been that they were discriminating against me as a disabled person. Since one can't prove a negative, how could they prove it wasn't so?

That's where all these anti-discrimination laws become crap. The market will take care of it. There were some Denny's restaurants accused of discriminating against blacks years ago. Denny's corp ended up paying out lots of money and making promises to not discriminate IIRC.

But it was all over the news that they were discriminating. Public ridicule results from stupid business practices. Those particular locations may have gone out of business on their own because people stopped patronizing the establishment.

Andy R. said...

There seem to be three options.

1) Businesses can discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want. You can refuse service to Republicans or Latinos, whatever you're in the mood for.

2) Businesses can discriminate against some people but not other people. You can refuse service to Tea Party folks but not blacks.

3) Businesses can't refuse service to anyone.

Legally, America has clearly decided to go with option 2. You can't discriminate against black people. You can against neo-nazis. Those signs that say, "we reserve the right to refuse service" should include, "except against groups that are protected by law". We're just arguing about who gets legal protection and who doesn't. Based on the direction the country is going, it's pretty clear that if we stick with #2, then gays are going to be protected against discrimination, while being an anti-gay bigot won't get protection. Can you imagine a hair salon that put up a sign that said "we won't cut the hair of gay people"?

Beyond the legal issue, which Lyssa did a good job of laying out, there is also a question about what each of us should do as individuals. In general, I think if everyone began engaging in widespread refusal of business interactions based on ideological concerns that would be a problem. A single hairdresser dropping a client is important for what it represents (anti-gay bigotry is a really shitty thing to do in America in 2012 and should be responded to), and this one instance can get nationwide publicity without us expecting to see a mass wave of similar instances.

I think in general we can and should be friends and do business with people who we aren't in perfect ideological agreement with. I've got only one business that I actively boycott (Chick-fil-a, because they donate money that goes to reparative therapy) so I shop at plenty of places that donate to Republicans and Christians groups or the Tea Party or whatever. I'm also friends with Republicans and libertarians and at least one Mormon, although I don't tend to talk politics or religion with most of them.

For people that object to what this hairdresser did, there seems to be some incoherence about whether you are advocating for position 1 or position 3 in my list above. At least some people in this thread have come out in favor of discriminating against black people if a business wants, which is clearly a non-start in today's America. But position three seems like such an unnecessary state intrusion that I can't imagine it flying either.

Which means that we're probably going to stay in position 2 with gays receiving increased legal protections as well as societal protections where social pressure will punish those who attempt to discriminate against gays while anti-gay bigots will continue to be marginalized and shunned.

Nathan Alexander said...

Shorter Andy r.:
Do what the liberals demand, or else!

chickenlittle said...

Andy R forgot:

4) The customer is always right.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Ah, but you see, the entertaining part about what the bigot Andy R lays out is the fact that he and his fellow bigots, for all their blathering about "legal protections", will never accept Americans voting to allow something which he and his fellow bigots do not support -- and will thus not obey the laws.

For example, there are laws against discriminating on the basis of religious belief. Andy R and his fellow bigots do not believe they should be required to follow such laws -- yet the bigot Andy R insists that other people should be forced to follow the laws against discriminating on the basis of other things that he supports.

So the bigot Andy R's logic is flawed. In order for it to be correct, the bigot must say that the will of the voters must be respected even if the bigot Andy R and his fellow bigots do not agree with it.

But the bigot Andy R will never do that. The bigot's goal is to be able to ignore and unequally apply the laws -- which ironically violates the bigot Andy R's constant screams about "equal protection".

If the bigot Andy R truly believed in "equal protection", he would state that gays and lesbians are required to follow the law and cannot discriminate against people. But he doesn't.

North Dallas Thirty said...

And the bigot Andy R made his bigotry obvious and blatant here.

It's only a double standard if we think gay people and anti-gay bigots should be held to the same standard.

Under law, yes, they have to be. You are stating that gay people should enjoy special privileges and exemptions from the laws that everyone else has to follow.

That is a violation of "equal protection" and is a clear case of government privileging someone based on minority status.

Why do you support this? What other laws do you feel gays and lesbians should be free to ignore, what other special perks and privileges should they receive based on their sexual orientation?

Andy R. said...

North Dallas Thirty said...

You really ought to read what Lyssa wrote about our current laws. Our current laws say that there are some people you are allowed to discriminate against and some people that you aren't allowed to. I didn't make the rules.

Roger Zimmerman said...

I love how DADvocate read Kimsch and then decided to educate her (him?) about the current state of judicial muddle on 1A free association.

Is/ought, anyone?

Oh yes, and as with Citizen's United , it does no good to argue about corporate "personhood". 1A states "government shall make no law"; it doesn't distinguish between individuals and groups of individuals (that are freely associating).

kimsch said...

Roger Z.

Her.

kimsch

wv: okeyu torlane - character in my future science fiction novel. Haven't yet decided whether a male or female character...

CWJ said...

Andy R, You seem to want to portray yourself as logical and reasonable, but your constant use of "anti-gay bigot" shows that you only wish to inflame and insult rather than honestly debate.

I am not in favor of same sex "marriage," but am pro civil union. Does that make me an anti-gay bigot?

P.S.: Phx, your "voice of reason" posture would carry more weight if you had included Andy R as well in your comment about a wide definition of bigotry. Just my opinion YMMV

CWJ

Chase said...

Our current laws say that there are some people you are allowed to discriminate against and some people that you aren't allowed to. I didn't make the rules.

That analysis is correct, but that doesn't mean it is right and it doesn't mean it is Constitutional, as in finding legal protection for discriminating against someone for their religious belief. Our government can and does get it wrong, causing untold damage to the social fabric by allowing and encouraging discrimination in favor of things not deliniated anywhere in the Constitution while clearly not upholding - indeed violating - what the Constitution clearly and unequivoacally does state.

If our hairdresser friend does not serve a patron because of he disagrees with her beliefs, and if those beliefs are religiously based, then that hair dresser has violated the civil rights of that patron, and the government should recognize it and punish it as such.


Confused and self-opposing but politically powerful gay bigot lobby, 1.
The First Amendment and the future of liberty, truth and Justice in America, 0.

Chase said...

Perhaps it would read more clearly if I said:


Confused and self-opposing but politically powerful pro-gay bigot lobby, 1.
The First Amendment and the future of liberty, truth and Justice in America, 0.

Nathan Alexander said...

The bottom line is:
the only part of homosexuality that matters in the public sphere is public behavior.

It is absolutely okay to discriminate on the basis of behavior. In fact, it would be stupid not to.

What you do in privacy is your business. What you do in public, and what you try to teach children about your behavior is everyone's business.

R. Chatt said...

On the other hand, by making a statement of his reason for denying service, the hairdresser is exercising his right of free speech. This isn't just any customer, she's a public official and the fact that this story was deemed newsworthy proves the action lies within the realm of free speech as well. Wasn't that his point to express his opinion?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brent said...

On the other hand, by making a statement of his reason for denying service, the hairdresser is exercising his right of free speech. This isn't just any customer, she's a public official and the fact that this story was deemed newsworthy proves the action lies within the realm of free speech as well. Wasn't that his point to express his opinion?


You confuse "speech" (protected by the Constitution) with "action":

His "statements" are protected free speech. He can say whatever he wants up and down, no matter how bigoted he chooses to be. He can even take out ads and pay for them and have a SuperPac pay for ads if they agree with him, et al.

His "action" - denying someone a service he provides to the public at large because of that someone's religiously motivated beliefs - is a violation of that someone's Federally protected civil rights. The hairdresser should be charged by the authorities - all the way up to Attorney General Eric Holder if necessary - with the willful denial and prevention of the exercising of that someone's Constitutional First Amendment Rights.

To not do so would be a great miscarriage of Justice and violation of the rights of Individuals provided under the Bill of Rights.

Why does the gay hairdresser want to deny someone else's civil rights? Why is this applauded? Isn't anyone who sides with the civil-rights-denying hairdresser the same in moral value as those who opposed civil rights for, say, blacks? The hairdresser took action and denied a woman her civil rights, her federally, Constitutionally protected rights. Isn't his hate-motivated action denying a publicly available service just the same as black-haters denying public services to blacks by not serving them at lunch counters in the 60's?

Amartel said...

Nobody's saying the hairdresser's statement is not protected free speech. The NM governor is certainly not stopping him from stating his opinion.

Just based on the governor's photograph, I would say a change of hairdresser is overdue. She could do better.

Ballcap's postings are unintentionally hilarious and an object lesson in why "protected" classifications of people are so distorting, degrading and dangerous. When you are freely and proudly revelling in the ability to discriminate against other people perhaps the need for societal "protection" is at an end.

rosebud said...

Nothing wrong with it. I'd think the hairdresser would want a high-visibility client like the governor, but if he wants to take the position that he shouldn't be forced to do business with somebody, he shouldn't have to.

I think its a stupid idea, turning down willing customers like that, but businesspeople, like everyone else, should have the right to do stupid things like that.

Chase said...

rosebud,

what's your opinion of:

New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.

rosebud said...

The same. Photographer should have the right to say no, I don't want to do business with you. Stupid to turn down clients, but it should be okay to do.