New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s (R) opposition to same-sex marriage has led to her stylist refusing to cut her hair ever again unless she changes her stance.
According to KOB-TV in Albuquerque, Antonio Darden declined to work on Martinez’s hairdo after cutting her hair three times previously. Darden, who runs Antonio’s Hair Studio in Sante Fe, said Martinez’s office repeatedly called to schedule another appointment with him only to be denied.
...Darden added: “I think it’s just equality, dignity for everyone. I think everybody should be allowed the right to be together. My partner and I have been together for 15 years.”
Martinez has stated that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman only.
55 Comments
Nobody, to my knowledge, has denied these miscreants the ability to associate with one-another. Obviously; this group is demanding that the general public acknowledge these relationships in exchange for access to public commerce – an act of violence under protection of law.
This is a full frontal assault on the 1st Amendment right of conscience and free exercise thereof.
This is what tyranny looks like!
Of course, if the situation was reversed, and Antonio was denied service, he would sue.
Excellent generalization Barb.
Darden and friend have been together for years and so they have been exercising the right to ... be ... together. Brilliant.
Refusing a customer?Isn't hair styling a public accomodation?
Heh.
A previous post called for a boycott of Starbucks because Starbucks supports marriage equality. NOM constantly highlights the plight of photographers and caterers who don't want to provide service for same sex ceremonies. Darden is free to cut the hair of whoever he chooses.
Can you imagine the gov. suing on the basis of discrimination.
Actually, this brings up a very interesting point. A few years back, a Christian-minded photographer declined to photograph a homosexual 'commitment ceremony' in New Mexico (this same state) and a human rights tribunal forced them to award damages to the homosexuals.
Surely the opposite should apply as well? Oh that's right, I almost forgot - tolerance applies to everyone except Christians.
Apparently, only SSMers have the right to refuse service.
If I was her. I would sue him for discrimination considering that the gays have no problem suing when others do the same thing to them.
It's just an example of "what goes around comes around."
My point exactly SC Guy. If I object to homosexuality am I allowed to refuse service to them. As usual according to the left tolerance is only a one way street.
You cannot discriminate against them but they may discriminate against you. Just like in public schools they can wear gay pride but students are suspended if they wear straight pride. They get parades while straights get nothing.
Finally in MA in the name of diversity the homosexuals got to have gay paegent on school property. When the straights wanted to host a Mr. Heterosexual they were denied their equality.
It's a mark of the conservative to generalize those that they disagree with. It is also a mark of the privileged to complain when that privilege is challenged.
Everyone here, great arguments...
On the flip side, the governor should show an example what the SSMers bunch should do when a business views on morality is threaten by a potential customer: go to another business who would take their money.
So their are two lessons to learn here, there is obviously a double standard with so-call gay people when it comes to who should be forced to render goods/services when the business transaction involves gays; the other issue, for those of you who do not think that SSM will not affect you and your way of living, think again...
QuereNe, you generalized about "the conservative". Are you conservative? If not, your generlization against generaization is noted anyway.
You generalized about "the privileged". Are you privileged? If yes, the your generalization about the mark (ie generalization) is noted anyway.
Either way you are generally mistaken. You know, yoy specifically are specifally wrong by your own thinking.
Heh.
This is why SSM, homosexuality will ruin our country if we do not get a president in the w.h that will go back promoting traditional values, and push way back on the gay agenda....
QueerNe, you made a couple of "excellent generalizations" .. as you might put it ... but could you try to be more specific?
Heh.
Was Darden splitting hairs anyway?
What is the specific difference between a hair stylist and a barber? The subject or the object of the service provider? Or what? Depends on what they want to call themselves or something?
Oh well.
There is a difference here, one is refusing to service an individual, which is permissible, while the other is refusing to service a class of individuals, which is impermissible.
If he said I refuse to service her because she's a woman or because she is straight that would not be permissible. But since she is the governor and has anti marriage equality positions he is free to discriminate against her as an individual.
Anti marriage equality governor is not a class of people. But even if it were he can still refuse to service her specifically. Only if he refused to service any anti marriage equality governors would even be discriminating against that class.
@Truth
That didn't make any bit of sense. He didn't service her because she didn't believe what he believed that's it. Gay people are not a class of people, it's crap like this that's why there's so much division in this country.
Actually, Zack, recent court decisions find that gay people ARE a class & have suffered years of discrimination.
Choices in behavior do not a class of people make. Those are choices, not skin color.
@Sheryl
Well the courts are wrong. Just because the government says so, doesn't mean its right.
I support the stylist's ability to refuse service because of his beliefs. That's a freedom we all ought to have.
@TC
I agree.
He takes a moral position and is justified, while she takes a moral position and is not justified in the eyes of the LGBT movement. Interesting. Where is the equality in that? All actions are equal right? only some are MORE equal.... Thanks for the clarification Sheryl.
@ TC Matthews who said "I support the stylist's ability to refuse service because of their beliefs. That's a freedom we all ought to have."
But it's a 2 way street. As I mentioned in my earlier post, in this very same state of New Mexico, a photographer was not allowed to refuse service to a homosexual couple because of his own beliefs and was forced to pay damages (I can't imagine what damage he did by simply declining to take their money) through a 'human rights tribunal'. Clearly, a double-standard is at work and that's why Christians and conservatives are right to make a big deal about this because otherwise, we'll be forced to do things against our conscience.
I agree, TC, let Antonio refuse service to anyone he wants. And I'll reserve the right to refuse service to anyone I want. I can hear the raucous shrieks of the opposition now.
Comments by The.Untruth make me laugh. Quite the little contortionist.
I think the hairstylist should deny service to someone who opposes his equal rights. My goodness, we don't expect the slaves to support the master's right to hold slaves, do we?
Not serving an individual is not the same as refusing to serve a class of people, especially when that class is a maligned minority group..
Talk about losing a good gig. There are many stylists around who would like a try.
I would love to see what would happen if a barber decided to refuse service to someone who supported same sex marriage. We all know that the advocates would be in an uproar, thus exposing another one of their many hypocrises
Re: "Darden added: 'I think it’s just equality, dignity for everyone. I think everybody should be allowed the right to be together. My partner and I have been together for 15 years.' "
It's weird. This person is involved but doesn't parrot homosexual special rights spin very well. Everybody has the right to be together.
"Equality"? Homosexual relationships are simply different from marriage.
Let me explain why it is wrong to allow discrimination against an entire class of people. If we permitted that you could effectively shut out those people from any and all purchases of goods service or other public accommodations.
Businesses who are licensed and privileged to do business with the general public cannot arbitrarily discriminate against any group of people without good cause, be that health, safety, civility, dress-code etc..
The claim that somebody can go elsewhere does not cut it. Nobody should have to be inconvenienced, pay more, or get less desirable service, whether that means they have to go across the street or go across town.
I would certainly boycott a pro-SSM hair-cutter...and so should the governor.
Here is another point that all are missing and shows how idiotic the homosexual crowd is. What we do not know is whether or not the Governor knew if the hairstylist was homosexual or not. But here is the key point. Despite her belief in marriage she did not let that affect her views as a customer. He had done a satisfactory job in the past and she was willing to reward him by continuing to be a customer. She showed class.
She could have dropped a client who served her well all because he is gay. Oh the irony of it all as the LBGT crowd would scream hate and homophobia. But rather than show hate she still allowed him to be her client.
Just more double standard from the other side.
Those of you who think that it's ok for the hair stylist to refuse the governor because she doesn't represent a "race" of people, what do you think about this judge?
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gay-Dallas-Judge-Wont-Perform-Marriages-140154903.html?dr
Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Straight Marriages
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won't perform marriage ceremonies until homosexuals can be wed.
During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."
See a video of her comments posted by the Dallas Voice below:
"I do not perform [marriages] because it is not an equal application of the law. Period," Parker told the Dallas Voice.
Though she chooses not to perform the ceremonies, Parker said she passes marriage ceremonies on to other judges so they can be completed.
Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.
I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.
Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.
I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the Judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. If my deputy is not busy, I will even ask him to escort or help these individuals find another Judge who performs the ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness.
During the meeting, Parker also mentioned other steps she takes to promote equality for gay, lesbian, and transgendered issues, including adding the word "partner" to the list of people the jury is not supposed to communicate about the ongoing case with, and admonishing an attorney who used the terms "child molester" and "homosexual" interchangeably.
Parker was elected in 2010 and is the first lesbian to be elected as a county judge in Dallas.
Just as a side note... I also support this judge in her decision. Everyone ought to have the freedom to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Dumb Dallas judge. The difference between him and the SSM dissenters in New York is that he is refusing to participate in what he believes are real marriages, while those in New York are refusing to participate in what they believe are not real marriages. For the Dumb Dallas judge, it is a temper tantrum. For the dissenters in New York, it is a matter of principle.
If I were elected to an office here in NY with the power to perform marriages,I would not do so as long as SSM remains legal.
"The claim that somebody can go elsewhere does not cut it. Nobody should have to be inconvenienced, pay more, or get less desirable service, whether that means they have to go across the street or go across town."
This is an untenable position in a pluralistic society.
AM, sometime you have to do what you have to do, inconvenience is a way of thinking that is changeable...
Well-said, John N. As demonstrated in this report, they are eager to do the very thing they condemn - denial of service. It would be nice if the governor sued in this case so that they might see the irony in it, but I'm sure that would be too politically incorrect. Oh well, just as there are plenty of options when it comes to over-priced coffee beverages, so it is with hair stylists.
Now look at this Dallas judge for more double standards.
She will not perform marriages claiming a conscience right not to do so. But in NY if a county clerk wishes to do the same thing they say you are a paid civil servant so do your job or be fired. Find another line of work. This is not done to the judge.
By the way has anyone noticed that the good and decent people of Texas have already voted on marriage. So called same sex marriage lost in a landslide. But once again we have an activist judge seeking to overturn the lawfull vote of the people.
This is not like if an anti-gay person refused service to a gay person.
This is like if a person refused service to somebody who believed he was less than a human, and actively worked to legally harm him.
Actually, it's not like that at all; it *IS* that. Literally, undeniably.
You people are just... so.. EVIL. It's not to late to repent... to work toward a better world. I believe there is goodness in everybody... and even NOMblog can only shake that faith so much (but y'all do shake it; you do).
I'm 100% certain that "She has done harm to me" is not on the list of things on which one can not legally discriminate.
If anything, he should have the right to harm her back--or at least to see that this person whose job is to serve the people who has used that position to harm some of those same people for the benefit of none is jailed for crime.
There are things that are evil but not illegal, but for an elected official to work to harm her constituents... nothing should be more illegal than that.
Pat do you subscribe to thought police? How do you know what other people think? Does it make you feel better to believe that people don't just disagree with you but that they "hate" you and wish to harm you? Eradicate you? Really?
It's just so--- over the top with you.
@John:
"I would love to see what would happen if a barber decided to refuse service to someone who supported same sex marriage."
Liar. If a barber refused service to someone who *OPPOSED OPPOSITE-SEX* marriage, that would be an equivalent.
Just because you use the phrase "Support Traditional Marriage" as a euphemism for opposing gay rights doesn't change the fact that you are defined by what you oppose--or that I can say with 100% certainty that this guy does, in fact, support straight marriage, even though I know nothing about him at all.
You don't want to label yourself by that which defines you, and instead choose a label that outlines a trait you actually have in common with your opposition. You do this because to say what you actually mean makes you sound bad.
There's a reason it makes you sound bad (Hint: It's because it *is* bad).
@Zach:
"He didn't service her because she didn't believe what he believed that's it."
o.0
SHE'S LITERALLY WORKING TO DO HIM HARM, AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHOSE JOB IS TO HELP HIM.
That's considerably different from "Doesn't share his beliefs."
Sweety, your side's goal is to harm people. What we disagree about is whether you should be allowed to harm people.
It's not over the top, it's literal.
You're bad people. Your goal is to harm some people--not just to do something for yourself with collateral damage, just harm with no benefits at all.
You're a cartoonish villain, evil for evil's sake with no real motivation. As a writer, I know I shouldn't create characters like you because they're not believable--but you're real!
She's not doing him any harm. He wants to redefine an age old institution and she won't let him. Simple as that. Get your facts straight.
BTW, I support his right to refuse her service. I disagree with him, but I support his right. It would be nice if the other side showed as much tolerance as the Governor did.
Kudos to you Governor!
"She's not doing him any harm. He wants to redefine an age old institution and she won't let him. Simple as that. Get your facts straight."
@Cecily Exactly. Good point.
@Pat "You're bad people....a cartoonish villain, evil for evil's sake with no real motivation."
SSM activists ought to have better tactics for convincing people than bullying them into submission with name calling, demonization and derision. There are real issues at hand here. This kind of stuff just makes the divide deeper, it doesn't help anyone.
"If anything, he should have the right to harm her back--or at least to see that this person whose job is to serve the people who has used that position to harm some of those same people for the benefit of none is jailed for crime. There are things that are evil but not illegal, but for an elected official to work to harm her constituents... nothing should be more illegal than that."
Really? Really. You want to see people who disagree with you be hurt or go to Jail? Keep talking Pat. More people ought to hear what you think.
Freedom of speech Pat. Freedom of Religion. Those two freedoms ensure that people like you and me can freely speak about our ideas without fear of recrimination. Taking those away is real harm... for everyone.
I'd love to know Pat's opinion of the fine folks who threatened bodily harm, and promoted rape of the 14 year-old girl who spoke up in support of man/woman marriage.
Do you recognize evil when you see it?
Daughter of Eve - You know they cant see the real hate that they have for anyone who doesnt agree with SSM. The SSM activists are some of the most hateful people I have ever seen in my life.