The Dutchman wrote:
What will the f*****t gay lobby say now?
Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, has been told by her gay hairdresser that he will no longer be working on her coif. It seems that her hairdresser, Mr. Antonio Darden, does not appreciate the Governors stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. Because of this he will no longer cut her hair.
Darden told a local news station that he cut the governors hair three times, but wont do it again as long as she continues to oppose gay marriage.
The governors aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in, he told KOB-TV. Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if Id changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.
Its just e******y, dignity for everyone, he said. Everybody should be allowed the right to be together.
Gov Martinez: Thats interesting. I think Mr. Darden is well within his rights to refuse service to anyone he chooses but given the recent spate of lawsuits against Christian business owners for not serving at gay weddings it seems like the outcry from the liberal community should be immediate. Theyve been the ones saying that Christians refusal to perform at gay weddings amounted to a new kind of Jim Crow so wouldnt this be similar?
The fact is that the gay lobby and the liberal community have overplayed their hand. They have been refusing service (and worse) to conservatives FOR YEARS. Whether the issue has been homosexuality, immigration, a******n, etc. they have always found reasons to marginalize and attack us. Now that Christians have turned the tables and refused to perform at gay weddings, the gay lobby has gotten litigious.
For years (especially in 80s movies about the beach) we were told No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service and we all assumed that businesspeople had the right to refuse service to anyone they didnt want to serve. In years past we also understood the free market better and knew that for the free market to operate fairly and justly, both parties had to CHOOSE to be part of the t***saction.
Forcing business owners to serve everyone no matter what is just as f*****t and despotic as the government saying that some people CANT be served.
Apparently, liberals are now openly embracing f*****m.
What will the f*****t gay lobby say now? br br G... (
show quote)
I'm not sure where "they have refused service to conservatives for years" comes from. I would like to hear some examples or such treatment. I've never hear "Sorry, fella, your wearing a Barry Goldwater button. No service here."
But it' sounds like this hairdresser is looking to make case law.
Take a look at the case that led to Arizona allowing businesses to refuse service to homosexuals and Lesbians.
Two Phoenix -area Lesbians were refused service by a wedding photographer for their "commitment" ceremony. Instead of finding another photographer, they sued the original photographer in Federal Court. And won. So Arizona passed the law allowing all businesses to refuse service based on sexual orientation.
Problem is that I don't see a photographer is a public accommodation (hotel, restaurant) that generally must service all people appropriately dressed (shoes and shirt are public health and public safety issues.) Nor does a photographer provide an essential service like a health professional or a drug store or grocery store.
Seems to me that the photographer, like the hair dresser, should be allowed freedom of association and freedom to service whomever he/she wants. The offended party should just go and look for a photographer or hairdresser who wants their business, as Im sure there are plenty.
It gets a little different with public accommodations and essential services. I can remember when restaurants around South Jersey had "no coloreds allowed" signs on their doors. When someone goes into the restaurant or hotel business, or opens a drug store or grocery store, there is an implied caveat that they will serve anybody that is appropriately dress and behaves appropriately.
Same goes for essential services.
And with the Arizona law, how is any hotel clerk or restaurant waitress going to tell? "Hey, bud, you look a little light in the loafers-get out." Sounds complicated to me. How can anyone tell how another person has sex?
For those who want to be with others of their own liking, we have private clubs. Private clubs routinely discriminate against people they don't want to associate with as they should be able to do. When government intrudes into private clubs who receive no tax benefits, including non-profit status, government is overreaching.
When public tax dollars are involved, however, any business should be required to service al comers. Any tax break, subsidy or other use of public money should include the caveat of non-discrimination.
And any state that passes laws like Arizona's will also loose business from, say, the NFL which is apparently thinking of pulling the Super Bowl out of the state should Jan Brewer sign the law. (The NFL certainly has changed. I remember Joe Namath getting all kinds of flak for wearing white cleats.)
Yeah, the homosexual mafia does get overbearing at times. But I think this hairdresser is trying to make a point, perhaps a valid one. If businesses are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, homosexuals (this guy's a hair dresser, perhaps a generalization, but a good guess) should be allowed discriminate against those who preach discrimination against them.
Religious organizations have been allowed to discriminate against those of other faiths for a long time. Although it doesn't happen much anymore, the Catholic Church routinely refused Communion to non-Catholics, as the Church should have the right to do.
And young people today really don't care that much about someone's sexual preference. Maybe not all young people, but a majority. It's just not a big deal anymore.
We've got to balance the freedom to associate with whom we please against the need to stop discrimination in public accommodations and essential services. It may be a messy process, but at some point we may just hit the right balance.
I collect books and found a book of sayings by Will Rogers. One quite says:
"Our religious beliefs are many but one belief is universal with all; and that is that there is some divine being higher than earthly. We can speak to him in many devious ways, in many languages, but He sees us all in the same light and judges us according to our actions as we judge the actions of our children differently because we know they are each different."