Gay Hairstylist Antonion Darden Refuses to Serve NM Governor For Anti Gay Views

[1776]

She should sue his faggot ass and put him out of business...that is what the fags like swallow do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL, of course the hairdresser will say "just kidding" very shortly but I know I could never resist to rub exclusionary bigotry in their pious fucking faces given the opportunity. Tit for tat is a valid political tool.

This story is a year old. So you just took being wrong to a whole new level...bless your heart

Yep, this happened in 2012, and nobody. NOBODY raised hell over it. So, why wasn't Darden forced to serve her against HIS beliefs? Care to take a stab at that?

Apparently because the governor, who would be the one with standing in the case, chose not to file suit.

Again, take it up with her.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This story is confusing, given this:

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez accepts same-sex marriage is law now | Gay Star News

That still doesn't change a thing. The fact this hairstylist got away with discriminating against someone because of their views show how hypocritical liberals are when it comes to the subject of tolerance.

It's up to the governor to contest his refusal. Take it up with her.

Which she won’t given the fact there’s nothing to ‘contest.’

 

[TemplarKormac]

I hope this hairstylist is forced to serve her despite his disapproval of her views, Public Accommodation laws demand it. This can only go to show the blatant hypocrisy shown by some on the subject of gay marriage.

Wrong again, as usual.

One of your fellow rightists, as ignorant of the law as you, already posted this.

And your thread, as with his, fails accordingly.

Public accommodations laws apply only to certain protected classes of persons, as in New Mexico:

…refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation…

Section 28-1-7 ? Unlawful discriminatory practice. :: Article 1 ? Human Rights, 28-1-1 through 28-1-15. :: Chapter 28 ? Human Rights. :: 2006 New Mexico Statutes :: New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Consequently, the hair stylist has ‘violated’ no law, public accommodations or otherwise, and no ‘hypocrisy’ exists.

You and other social conservatives completely misunderstand the issue. The issue has nothing to do with your hatred of gays, religious liberty, or the myth of ‘liberal hypocrisy.’

The issue concerns the fact that public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans are valid and Constitutional because they seek to protect local markets and all other interrelated markets. Because public accommodations laws’ primary focus and effect is to maintain the integrity of the markets, they in no way ‘violate’ religious liberty.

Your ignorance continues to cripple you.

You're serious with this right? What does that statute have to do with serving people in a public establishment? That statute deals with the leasing and subleasing of property, housing accommodations, renting and selling to people of these classes. Notice how it says "religion" in there too. It's funny you sit there and presume to misapply the law in such a way.

So, Antionio Darden broke New Mexico law by refusing service to Susana Martinez. He broke Federal Law also.

SEC. 201. (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 42 U.S. Code § 2000a All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Now Federal law trumps State Law, thus, Antonio Darden should have been made to play by the same rules Christian proprietors did. Under this law his Salon is defined as a place of public accommodation.

My knowledge of the law is quite adequate, Clayton. Your ignorance of the law cripples you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I hope this hairstylist is forced to serve her despite his disapproval of her views, Public Accommodation laws demand it. This can only go to show the blatant hypocrisy shown by some on the subject of gay marriage.

Sure, if she's brave enough to face him with a supply of hair color and scissors.

Yep, surely you can't sit there and say that the law only applies to Christians, can you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, this is his Salon.

Antonio Darden, Owner Day Spa in Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and she is wrong....moving on

Definitive proof you are a hack, what a surprise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Notice, Liberals, how I'm making the same argument you make, that Darden had no right to ditch a client or refuse her service simply because of her views on homosexuality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This story is a year old. So you just took being wrong to a whole new level...bless your heart

Yep, this happened in 2012, and nobody. NOBODY raised hell over it. So, why wasn't Darden forced to serve her against HIS beliefs? Care to take a stab at that?

Apparently because the governor, who would be the one with standing in the case, chose not to file suit.

Again, take it up with her.

Perhaps she chose to turn the other cheek, as opposed to homosexual activists. Still, there's the underlying issue of your hypocrisy on the subject.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That still doesn't change a thing. The fact this hairstylist got away with discriminating against someone because of their views show how hypocritical liberals are when it comes to the subject of tolerance.

It's up to the governor to contest his refusal. Take it up with her.

Which she won’t given the fact there’s nothing to ‘contest.’

Plenty to contest. He doesn't have the right to discriminate against his clients, or his customers. I've searched high and low, nowhere does he list his Studio as a "Private Establishment." Thus, he was in violation of Federal Public Accommodation Laws.

 

[Pheonixops]

It's his right to refuse service.

I tend to agree with your stance. If I owned a bakery, wedding photo company, etc., I would be glad that there were bigots who didn't want to serve people because of their race, sexual orientation, etc. I would make sure that I would have establishments that made sure that we let people know that we welcome everybody to be our customer.

I also think if a person or group of people don't want to serve people's whose race and views they don't like, should start a club and exercise their First Amendment rights, Have your own private bakery club, private photography club, or bar and only let the people whose race and sexual status that you agree with.

If it's a bus station, gas station, train station, hotel, or restaurant, I think that they should treat every potential customer the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, I agree that Antonio (a homosexual) has a right to refuse service, just as a Christian has a right to refuse service. To say that one has the right but not the other isn't fair.

 

[Pheonixops]

I hope this hairstylist is forced to serve her despite his disapproval of her views, Public Accommodation laws demand it. This can only go to show the blatant hypocrisy shown by some on the subject of gay marriage.

Wrong again, as usual.

One of your fellow rightists, as ignorant of the law as you, already posted this.

And your thread, as with his, fails accordingly.

Public accommodations laws apply only to certain protected classes of persons, as in New Mexico:

…refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation…

Section 28-1-7 ? Unlawful discriminatory practice. :: Article 1 ? Human Rights, 28-1-1 through 28-1-15. :: Chapter 28 ? Human Rights. :: 2006 New Mexico Statutes :: New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

Consequently, the hair stylist has ‘violated’ no law, public accommodations or otherwise, and no ‘hypocrisy’ exists.

You and other social conservatives completely misunderstand the issue. The issue has nothing to do with your hatred of gays, religious liberty, or the myth of ‘liberal hypocrisy.’

The issue concerns the fact that public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans are valid and Constitutional because they seek to protect local markets and all other interrelated markets. Because public accommodations laws’ primary focus and effect is to maintain the integrity of the markets, they in no way ‘violate’ religious liberty.

Your ignorance continues to cripple you.

You're serious with this right? What does that statute have to do with serving people in a public establishment? That statute deals with the leasing and subleasing of property, housing accommodations, renting and selling to people of these classes. Notice how it says "religion" in there too. It's funny you sit there and presume to misapply the law in such a way.

So, Antionio Darden broke New Mexico law by refusing service to Susana Martinez. He broke Federal Law also.

SEC. 201. (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 42 U.S. Code § 2000a All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Now Federal law trumps State Law, thus, Antonio Darden should have been made to play by the same rules Christian proprietors did. Under this law his Salon is defined as a place of public accommodation.

My knowledge of the law is quite adequate, Clayton. Your ignorance of the law cripples you.

Which subsection do you think applies to this particular situation?

 

[Zander]

I support his right to freely associate.



Oh by the way, here's your wedding cake!!!

 

[Clementine]

When a business or person doesn't do as the left wants, their first instinct is to run to gubmint and demand that people be forced to obey their will. When it's their own doing these things, they quickly cite rights, as in the right to refuse service. Of course, rights are not selective. We all have certain rights or none of us has them.

When Chic fil a announced that they held traditional family values, the left wanted laws forcing them to go against their beliefs. Their second reaction was to protest. That should have been their first.

I think in the cases of the bakery and photographers not wanting to serve gays, the left should have protested. But, no, they went with their preferred method of forcing people to act against their will to satisfy the left.

Interesting that this case was a year ago and nary a word from the left or right. Why? The Republican said, "Oh, well, the person had a right to refuse service" and let it go. The left cannot do that. They have to antagonize people until they get their way.

Their attitude changes depending on the circumstances. It's the same unequal treatment regardless of the issue. Whether it's having a right to refuse service or hate crimes, the left looks at matters through the lens of party and agenda. If it doesn't affect them, fuck it. Gays exercising rights, good. Non-gays exercising rights, bad. White on black crime, big deal and they shout it from the rooftops. Black on white crime, quickly look the other way and don't talk about it. If they don't like something, they demand changes. If you don't like something, tough shit. It's their way or the highway. They can't live and let live. Everyone has to live the way they want or they have a hissy fit.

Christians protest and are slammed for it.

The left doesn't represent all people. They are litigious by nature, with most Dems in high places, including presidents, being lawyers. The tax payers, the wealthy (except libs), the whites (except libs) and basically anyone on the right are the ones they aim to sue on behalf of groups they have decided need special protection. Their "clients" can do no wrong and will never be held responsible for their own actions. Like any scumbag lawyer, they lie on their client's behalf and are great at smear campaigns to impugn their target.

Hypocrisy from the left is so common.

It goes farther than mere double standards. They deliberately attack their political enemies and will do anything it takes to further their oppressive and un-American agenda.

Personally, I have no issues with gay people. We just have to be fair and treat all people the same. Laws are for all of us. Liberals don't seem to believe that since they are selective with the rules and who should or shouldn't obey them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wrong again, as usual.

One of your fellow rightists, as ignorant of the law as you, already posted this.

And your thread, as with his, fails accordingly.

Public accommodations laws apply only to certain protected classes of persons, as in New Mexico:



Consequently, the hair stylist has ‘violated’ no law, public accommodations or otherwise, and no ‘hypocrisy’ exists.

You and other social conservatives completely misunderstand the issue. The issue has nothing to do with your hatred of gays, religious liberty, or the myth of ‘liberal hypocrisy.’

The issue concerns the fact that public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans are valid and Constitutional because they seek to protect local markets and all other interrelated markets. Because public accommodations laws’ primary focus and effect is to maintain the integrity of the markets, they in no way ‘violate’ religious liberty.

Your ignorance continues to cripple you.

You're serious with this right? What does that statute have to do with serving people in a public establishment? That statute deals with the leasing and subleasing of property, housing accommodations, renting and selling to people of these classes. Notice how it says "religion" in there too. It's funny you sit there and presume to misapply the law in such a way.

So, Antionio Darden broke New Mexico law by refusing service to Susana Martinez. He broke Federal Law also.

SEC. 201. (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 42 U.S. Code § 2000a All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Now Federal law trumps State Law, thus, Antonio Darden should have been made to play by the same rules Christian proprietors did. Under this law his Salon is defined as a place of public accommodation.

My knowledge of the law is quite adequate, Clayton. Your ignorance of the law cripples you.

Which subsection do you think applies to this particular situation?

This little clause in subsection (c)

"For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country."

So when you offer to cut people's hair and style it, you are offering a form of trade as defined here. Unless I find otherwise, Antonio's establishment does not list itself as a private business. He takes clients in by appointment... so his situation wouldn't apply to subsection (e)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Furthermore, this is the description of what his business does, and whom it serves:

Here at Antonio's hair studio, Antonio understands that your hair style means a lot. That is why he works hard to help his clients achieve their best style. Forget flipping through a magazine and selecting a random style, we offer so much more. Unlike his competitors who just cut and snip, Antonio looks at the shape and structure of your face and choose(s) a style and color that compliments you. It is because of this dedication and (an) eye for beauty that Antonio has become the best Santa Fe hair studio. This Santa Fe hair salon is so much more than just a place to get a hair cut. Antonio's energetic and creative approach is here for you to give you the beauty you deserve, all at an affordable price. That is why Antonio's has become the best place to get a haircut in Santa Fe. His location is convenient for everyone in Santa Fe, Taos, Albuquerque, Espanola, Rio Rancho and the surround(ing) areas. Call for an appointment today to experience his quality of care for your hair.

Antonio's Hair Studio - Santa Fe, NM | Yelp

The very last sentence and the use of "everyone" in his description makes his business a place of public accommodation. Thus he got away with a crime. He breached Federal Public Accommodation Law and violated Susana Martinez's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.