The Dutchman

What will the fascist 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 Governor’s 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 governor’s hair three times, but won’t do it again as long as she continues to oppose gay marriage.

“The governor’s 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 I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.”

“It’s just equality, dignity for everyone,” he said. “Everybody should be allowed the right to be together.”

Gov Martinez: That’s 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. They’ve been the ones saying that Christians’ refusal to perform at gay weddings amounted to a new kind of “Jim Crow” – so wouldn’t 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, abortion, 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 80’s 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 didn’t 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 transaction.

Forcing business owners to serve everyone no matter what is just as fascist and despotic as the government saying that some people CAN’T be served.

Apparently, liberals are now openly embracing fascism.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Did you hear about the Pope supporting "civil unions?" http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/comment-page-4/

Ricktloml

There is nothing surprising here, hypocrisy is the hallmark of the left

Loki Loc: Georgia

The Gaystapo, now in Naziette pink and assorted lovely pastels. I have an idea: Be as queer as you like in private. I don't care. I have worked with gays that I never would have guessed it had they not told me. Fine. It's these fucking loudmouth, obnoxious, self-righteous faggots that truly bother me. What they do in private is not my business.

ninetogo

__________________________________________________

I concur! Your sexuality is none of my business. When your sexuality is openly paraded and thrown in my face, you make it my business. That behavior and lifestyle is foreign to my person thinking. The agenda seems that the gay community wants acceptance and absolute tolerance from the heterosexual community, yet that door does not swing in both directions.

Iggy Rat Loc: Lost in America

I've always been of the opinion that "Marriage" is a religious institution. "Civil Unions" should carry all the same legal rights and responsibilities without the religious connotations. If gays want to "Marry" they should read the Bible, or any of the world's other religious texts and find that God is NOT cool with homosexuality. Separation of church and state. Uncle Sam won't marry you. He will provide you with a Civil Union. Same thing. No religion involved. Church won't let you in. Sodomy specifically mentioned in the Bible. Sorry. Not my rule. Not my place to wonder. I'm just trying to obey.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Frankly I was not surprised that the Catholic church would bend over to the threats from the activist homosexuals. I wonder if the activists threatened to out a number of priests and bishops as pedophiles, or perhaps they told the Catholic church that they would work hard to keep the suits down from men who had been molested by the priests and bishops when they were boys. The tremendous costs of the suits against the Catholic church have hurt the church (but not enough to have them help get the pedophile priests behind bars where they belong) The Boys Town in Australia that was run by the Catholic church and is now proven to have allowed the priests to molest hundreds of boys is costing the Catholic church millions, Maybe, just maybe, the church decided that ignoring the Bible to encourage homosexual unions would solve their financial problems. Who knows?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

One thing you have to remember is that the gays, along with others, are trying to tear down the church. Since it is the church that is trying to tell them that it is immoral, they want to get rid of it. That is just one of the reasons they are trying to get rid of it, but that really is enough. I really don't care if they want to be immoral, but when they start telling me that I must be immoral too, I draw the line. They have no more right to make me be immoral then I do to make them moral. As long as they keep it to themselves I don't care, but they simply can't do that. They always have to get in my face about it and that is why I can't stand being around them. Just like their little chant goes, we're gay, we're proud and we're in your face. I think it was Ellen Degenerate that came up with that one, but it tells you exactly how they feel. They are the ones that are going to have to answer for it, not me, so they can be as immoral as they want. Just don't try and drag everyone else down to your level.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

I agree 100% what they do in their home behind closed doors it between them and their God and I could care less. It when they decide to altar my life style that I have a problem.

Kevyn

He should just dye a rainbow into her new Mohawk hair style.

marjorie

What would one expect from a "Sodomite". It's there way or no way. Well let me tell you forget the terms gaye, homosexual and all other quaint terms. They are "S O D O MI T E S". They will be judged not by me, but My Savior Jesus Christ and there final judgement will be HELL according to an unforgiving spirit. This is truth.
to all subscribers

Hungry Freaks

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."

rumitoid

Very well presented thought on this super-charged (for some) issue.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Great post! You really covered the essential components of this issue, and you sound like a very fair-minded person.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

I would say your dogmatic and prejudiced attitude constitutes one of the major problems in dealing with this issue. Well guess what, not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. But your mind is made up and there's no reasoning with someone who holds these beliefs. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible "Judge not lest ye be judged"?