Gay hair stylist refuses to serve governor

[justonemorevoice]

I think it's time to declare 'open season' on all Queers.

in what way?

 

[JimH52]

I think it is hilarious!

 

[jknowgood]

IF she is breaking any of the state's equal access laws, yes the Governor has the right to sue. Pretty clear.

She is a bigot? Right?

Sounds to me that she is angry with one person, a politician, because of her political stance on an issue that concerns the hairdresser. Does that make her a bigot?

I don't agree with her life style, but it's her life. I've been called a bigot.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Would love to see some of the locals call for a boycott of this salon.

Fight fire with fire.

 

[Againsheila]

The governor should file a lawsuit against the little whiny bigot for refusing to cut her hair.

Of course she won't, she has too much class (unlike the other side) and will simply go elsewhere.

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) "has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage,"*KOB TV*reports."Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio's Hair Studio in Santa Fe, said he cut Martinez' hair three times, but that's it -- unless she changes her mind about gay marriage."Said Darden: "The governor's aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. Because of her stances and her views on this I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I'd changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no again."

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

So, you can't refuse to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple based on your religion, but Muslims can refuse to transport alcohol for their bosses based on their religion (Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol | Conservative Infidel Conservative Infidel) and homosexuals can refuse to cut hair of people who aren't homosexuals based simply on the fact they disagree?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Would love to see some of the locals call for a boycott of this salon.

Fight fire with fire.

I think they've arrived!!!

 

[Godboy]

That hair dresser should have the right to refuse service. Do you think a restaurant owned by a gay couple should have to serve the Westboro Baptists if they all came in for a meal? I don't think so. I also don't think that religious people should be forced to serve gay people, even if I don't agree with their beliefs.

 

[justonemorevoice]

That hair dresser should have the right to refuse service. Do you think a restaurant owned by a gay couple should have to serve the Westboro Baptists if they all came in for a meal? I don't think so. I also don't think that religious people should be forced to serve gay people, even if I don't agree with their beliefs.

hell no. i dont think ANYONE should serve those assholes.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That hair dresser should have the right to refuse service. Do you think a restaurant owned by a gay couple should have to serve the Westboro Baptists if they all came in for a meal? I don't think so. I also don't think that religious people should be forced to serve gay people, even if I don't agree with their beliefs.

If WBC walked in without signs and weren't addressing their message in any way then they can't be denied service. It is their right. If they begin speaking about it in the restaurant they can be kicked out on the grounds of freedom of speech.

If a gay person wants you to write "Jesus was gay" on a cake you can tell them to piss off and leave. If they want a regular cake with no message you have no right to deny them service.

Sorry about the whole "America," "equality," thing
[MENTION=17047]Godboy[/MENTION]

 

[LoneLaugher]

The governor's stance on the rights of gay people is a choice. The couple who wanted a cake did not choose to be gay. The difference is very clear to a thinking person.






Nutters love choice so much, they tell gay people that their lifestyle is a choice.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to this hairdresser all the baker would have to do is tell the gay couple that because of their political opinion on gay rights they can't get their cake.

 

[TheOldSchool]

According to this hairdresser all the baker would have to do is tell the gay couple that because of their political opinion on gay rights they can't get their cake.

Under the law the hairdresser would lose

 

[emilynghiem]

How sadly ironic this issue of gay marriage
seems to be causing more and more divorces
over irreconcilable differences. Whole churches and states dividing, and people fighting whether to interpret laws against discrimination as defending one way, or another, or both simultaneously which I believe is the only fair way to be equally inclusive.

Perhaps this is a good example for explaining the
dilemma of waging war to make peace?

The governor should file a lawsuit against the little whiny bigot for refusing to cut her hair.

Of course she won't, she has too much class (unlike the other side) and will simply go elsewhere.

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) "has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage,"*KOB TV*reports."Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio's Hair Studio in Santa Fe, said he cut Martinez' hair three times, but that's it -- unless she changes her mind about gay marriage."Said Darden: "The governor's aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. Because of her stances and her views on this I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I'd changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no again."

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

The solution is deceptively simple: respect all opinions as personal, and keep them all out of public policy. Only pass laws that reflect a consensus of all people represented equally.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The governor should file a lawsuit against the little whiny bigot for refusing to cut her hair.

Of course she won't, she has too much class (unlike the other side) and will simply go elsewhere.

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) "has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage,"*KOB TV*reports."Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio's Hair Studio in Santa Fe, said he cut Martinez' hair three times, but that's it -- unless she changes her mind about gay marriage."Said Darden: "The governor's aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. Because of her stances and her views on this I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I'd changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no again."

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

So, you can't refuse to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple based on your religion, but Muslims can refuse to transport alcohol for their bosses based on their religion (Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol | Conservative Infidel Conservative Infidel) and homosexuals can refuse to cut hair of people who aren't homosexuals based simply on the fact they disagree?

Welcome to America 2014.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

That hair dresser should have the right to refuse service. Do you think a restaurant owned by a gay couple should have to serve the Westboro Baptists if they all came in for a meal? I don't think so. I also don't think that religious people should be forced to serve gay people, even if I don't agree with their beliefs.

Too late. Unfortunately a gay couple with their lawsuit against the cake maker has already set a prescedant.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The governor's stance on the rights of gay people is a choice. The couple who wanted a cake did not choose to be gay. The difference is very clear to a thinking person.






Nutters love choice so much, they tell gay people that their lifestyle is a choice.

They did CHOOSE however to be married, and they could have CHOSE to take their business elsewhere, instead they CHOSE to force themselves on to someone who did not want their business.

 

[emilynghiem]

The governor should file a lawsuit against the little whiny bigot for refusing to cut her hair.

Of course she won't, she has too much class (unlike the other side) and will simply go elsewhere.

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) "has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage,"*KOB TV*reports."Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio's Hair Studio in Santa Fe, said he cut Martinez' hair three times, but that's it -- unless she changes her mind about gay marriage."Said Darden: "The governor's aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. Because of her stances and her views on this I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I'd changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no again."

Stylist Won't Cut Governor's Hair Over Gay Marriage Stance

So, you can't refuse to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple based on your religion, but Muslims can refuse to transport alcohol for their bosses based on their religion (Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol | Conservative Infidel Conservative Infidel) and homosexuals can refuse to cut hair of people who aren't homosexuals based simply on the fact they disagree?

And Atheists can sue to remove a cross from public property that violates their Constitutional beliefs in "separation of church and state".

But Constitutionalists can't remove individual mandates from public law that violate
Constitutional beliefs in state rights and people's liberty in health care as a choice.

Why are the atheists' beliefs in Constitutional freedom and protections defended by law
but not others? Puzzling, very curious how this works. And where this line of thinking leads.

Is it because people assume the class of Christians or anti-gay/anti-gay marriage are the "dominant" group,
that only the minority can be the oppressed party discriminated against? the 1-3% homosexual minority,
or the lone atheist who is beseiged by the majority of the public being accepting and tolerant of Christian symbols?

So "it's okay" to infringe on groups that are big enough they can take the hit;
and only wrong to discriminate against helpless minorities seen as the victim?

Is that the rule of the game?

If you're Christian, conservative or Constitutionalist, you can't be victimized or discriminated against
because you have more power and advantage over others anyway? Is that what people are thinking?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A provider cannot CHOOSE who to serve or not serve according to public access laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

The governor's stance on the rights of gay people is a choice. The couple who wanted a cake did not choose to be gay. The difference is very clear to a thinking person.

Nutters love choice so much, they tell gay people that their lifestyle is a choice.

People should always be free to get married within the church or private affiliation of their choice that AGREES to conduct or participate in such.

The govt cannot regulate religious activities. Churches or individuals should not be forced to participate in religious activities they don't believe in, and neither should businesses.

They did CHOOSE however to be married, and they could have CHOSE to take their business elsewhere, instead they CHOSE to force themselves on to someone who did not want their business.

This seems like a form of discrimination or harassment in itself.
Should we go back to "don't ask, don't tell" and keep your business to yourself?

 

[emilynghiem]

A provider cannot CHOOSE who to serve or not serve according to public access laws.

But you CAN decide what "services or activities" you offer to cover.

Plenty of publishers/printers refuse pornographic images.

A Mexican restaurant cannot be ordered to serve Korean cuisine.

And if people don't believe in endorsing or participating in gay marriage,
that's an activity and it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

I find the problem here is not just with people "don't understand" some people are born gay and some soul mates are born same sex; but with people who "don't understand"
that not believing in gay marriage IS a valid religious belief and not just antigay bigotry.

same with people who cannot understand "right to health" as a valid belief,
or states rights and health care as a choice as valid beliefs; both sides attack
and assume the other is playing political games when these are actually their valid beliefs!