Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex...

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Redress said:

Both would be legal.

Click to expand...

You don't see where the "suspicion" transitions into obvious racial discrimination? A business that allowed a white individual wearing baggy clothes but denied a black individual dressed similarly on the basis of suspected gang activity would most certainly be guilty of racial discrimination.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Mithros said:

You don't see where the "suspicion" transitions into obvious racial discrimination? A business that allowed a white individual wearing baggy clothes but denied a black individual dressed similarly on the basis of suspected gang activity would most certainly be guilty of racial discrimination.

Click to expand...

As long as they are allowing black people without baggy clothes, it isn't racial. I agree there are some real difficulties with enforcement, but under the law, both are legal.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

rathi said:

Plenty of your fellow liberals espouse that particular belief. I am aware its not universal, but it was specifically brought up in this thread by a liberal poster.

Click to expand...

And "plenty" of conservatives espouse the belief that every poor person is lazy or greedy, and that black people only voted for Obama because he's black.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Kreton said:

So then a business owner who discriminates against a gay person who supports gay marriage would be ok as long as they refuse service based on that persons support of gay marriage?

Click to expand...

Probably.

Remember Public Accommodation laws (like New Mexico) require that a business provide the full range of goods and services, or as NM puts it differences either "directly or indirectly" in what they do.

So, the hairdresser (one would assume) will be able to bring a long trail of (a) females, showing it wasn't based on gender, (b) Christians showing it wasn't based on religion. The same services were supplied to customers irregardless of gender or religion. On the other, using a baker of wedding cakes as a reference, the baker would need to provide witnesses (i.e. customer testimony) that show that they had supplied wedding cakes to same-sex Commitment Ceremonies/Weddings, not sold them brownies (a subset of services) but the same services (wedding cakes). If the baker can show that, ya he'd probably prevale on the political stance argument.

See if the baker can show they had already provided EQUAL goods and services to homosexual couples for the same ceremonies, then it's demonstrable history of non-discrimination. On the other hand if the Baker was trying to use it a "ruse" to get around the law then it wouldn't fly.


>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

rathi said:

Discriminating against homosexuals based on irrational prejudice hurts innocent people. Discriminating against jackass politicians who openly want to persecute you is entirely reasonable. Not all "personal beliefs" are morally equivalent.

Click to expand...

You can't possibly win your argument, Rathi. It's exactly the same thing. This hairdresser is refusing his services to someone that he had as a client for what he believes to be rational objections. The state of Arizona, through its elected representatives are actively seeking to protect the "other's not named gay" rights to their beliefs. You personally think that this is irrational, but on its face the very existence and pursuance of such laws demands that the thought process for needed to protect those that believe what they do as paramount to preserving the essential liberties of association. This is the irony of the Arizona Bill that this hairdresser has so eloquently placed on display for all to see; If the Bill was signed into law, his actions would not be criminal, or at the least require a civil remedy.

Ain't irony great?


Tim-

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Kreton said:

So then yes. You'd be fine with businesses discriminating based on ones "beliefs".

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself. Absolutely. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and allow businesses to function on their beliefs. Private businesses should be able to model their business on their beliefs and if that includes decisions based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orienation, etc. I'm fine with that.

That DOES NOT mean that I will agree with their discriminatory practices. Television news, Radio, Newspapers, email, internet, review sites should also be free to highlight such practices to inform the public concerning the operation of the business.




I also like the idea of a "Public Accommodation" certificate that must be displayed at each customer entrance, at each cash register (or on the menu for restraints), and posted next to the Business license (which must be on display). Such a certificate must be on file with the business licensing authority and available for review just as the license is. A business can select an option that indicates they will comply with providing equal and full access to all customers. On the other hand they can also select that they reserve the right to refuse customers based on what classes they choose and then are required to identify. This allows the public to be informed. If after filing such a certificate the business owner violates the conditions they set, only then would they be subject to penalties. OK, so a baker fills out the certificate and reserves the right to serve gays, that doesn't mean they HAVE to refuse gays, it just means they've reserved the right - they can refuse all services or just a subset, their choice.




>>>>

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

tech30528 said:

Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage* - NY Daily News

Soooo, here it is, the other side of the coin. For all of you who cheered the veto of the Arizona protection of religion bill, we now have the flip side. Governor Martinez' hairdresser refuses to do business with her any more because of her views on gay marriage. Anyone want to try to defend this bigotry? After all the claims of Equality, it seems that equality really ISN'T the point after all.

Personally, I'd sue his panties off just to make a point.

Click to expand...

On what grounds would he be able to sue? As a free agent working for himself, he has a right to pick and choose his clients. If Christians have a right to refuse service to gays, why wouldn't gays have the right to refuse service to those who view them as evil sinners and second-class citizens? :shrug:

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Frankly, I wouldn't want someone cutting my hair that is this pissed off at me.
Besides, closing your eyes in the cutting chair and BSing with your hairdresser is supposed to be fun, even a cheap psycho treatment .

sangha said:

What he did is both illegal and wrong.

Click to expand...

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

rathi said:

The liberal idea that "all opinions are equally valid" is nonsense. The people against homosexuality cannot provide any evidence of why it is objectively harmful. By contrast, I can provide tangible examples of the harm caused by people discriminating against homosexuals. My arguments based on facts and logic do in fact trump irrational blind prejudice.

Click to expand...

Are you always so prone to painting with such a broad brush?

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

DiAnna said:

On what grounds would he be able to sue? As a free agent working for himself, he has a right to pick and choose his clients. If Christians have a right to refuse service to gays, why wouldn't gays have the right to refuse service to those who view them as evil sinners and second-class citizens? :shrug:

Click to expand...

you are wrong. 2 businesses did that and they were sued over discrimination laws. the court said that their religious views did not matter.

the Gov of NM is a catholic. therefore her religious beliefs say that marriage is between a man and a women. the dresser in question is discriminating against her religious beliefs.
that is illegal.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

No she's not, the hairdresser has plenty of female clients and will provide services to them. Therefore it's not the sexual orienation (or gender either) that is the basis of the refusal.

Remember the claim from the bakers? To paraphrase: They sell baked goods to gay people all the time, it was the event, not the person to which they objected". So in this case it's not the sexual orientation nor the sex of the Governor which is the factor, the it is her political position they they find offensive and therefore refused service.

It's very hypocritical to say a photographer or baker can refuse to service a customer because they don't believe in Same-sex Civil Marriage and to then turn around and say that a hairdresser can't refuse service they do believe in Marriage Equality.


>>>>

Click to expand...

So if we can assume that most gay people are liberal, is it OK to refuse them service because they are liberal?

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Our CERN group specifically prohibits racial discrimination. It is a group that provides training for emergency response. So are we discriminating against people who dislike blacks or Mexicans and refusing to provide them with (possibly) life saving training?

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

tech30528 said:

So if we can assume that most gay people are liberal, is it OK to refuse them service because they are liberal?

Click to expand...

Under New Mexico law yes as "liberal" is a political leaning. However that would require you to ask your customers their political leaning (or in this case their support for Same-sex Civil Marriage). If you turned away homosexuals that supported SSCM but did not turn away heterosexuals that supported SSCM then the basis of your discriminatory acts was not based on "liberal" it was based on sexual orientation. If you asked ONLY the homosexual customers and not the heterosexual customers that would show an attempted ruse to circumvent the law by targeting homosexual. So if you want to ask all your customers whether they support SSCM before giving them service and then denying service equally based on the answer - knock yourself out.

This hairdresser based his refusal on the fact that her position is as governor she does not support Marriage Equality. If the Governor were dumb enough to file a complaint (it would be a media circus) that the hairdresser was discriminating based on a protected category (in this case religion) the hairdresser could (one would assume) bring in witness after witness of customers that are religious and disagree with SSCM, that proves the basis then is not religion. The basis is that the Governor is a political person in a position to influence Civil Law and therefore he is taking a stand against an individual politician. Something that is not illegal.

Let's apply that to another scenario. I own a restaurant, a pretty good restaurant. A councilman of Italian decent is working very hard to have my property condemned under imminent domain to put in a public parking lot to enhance shopping at a nearby mall. He comes into my restaurant and I refuse him service and tell him to leave my place. He files a complaint and says I discriminated against him because of his ethnicity/national origin. I bring to court witness after witness of Italian decent showing I don't discriminate based on ethnicity/national origin. I've shown that is not the case, the discrimination was based on his political position - something not covered under the law.



>>>>

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

WorldWatcher said:

On the other, using a baker of wedding cakes as a reference, the baker would need to provide witnesses (i.e. customer testimony) that show that they had supplied wedding cakes to same-sex Commitment Ceremonies/Weddings, not sold them brownies (a subset of services) but the same services (wedding cakes).

Click to expand...

And here's where I either disagree with your interpritation of the law and/or disagree with the law (frankly, without actual tangiable cases, this is more likely a disagreement of opinion as it relates to the law).

"Same Sex Marries" are not a protected category, even under New Mexico I believe.

If the baker could show that they have served homosexual customers, as you highlight with "females" and "christians" above, then it should show the discrimination is NOT based on sexual orientation but rather disagreement over an event.

If it was sexual orientation, a homosexual person trying to procure a cake for their friends "traditional" marriage would be denied....or a heterosexual person trying to procure a cake for their friends "same sex marriage" would not be denied.

The sticky issue for me would be whether said homosexual couple indicated the cake was for a "same sex marriage" or if they were simply indicating they wanted a cake.

A wedding is not a sexual orientation, and within this country one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless it can be shown in some fashion that the business is discriminating against the couple due to their orientation, and not a disagreement with their event, then I don't really see the violation of the law.

As an example I put forward in another thread...

If said baker refused to provide a cake for a White Power Rally, but has provided a cake for a Motorcycle Clubs rally, this would not be a case of violationg public accomodation laws on my reading. Despite the fact that the rally has a distinctive connection to a protected classification, it is still utlimately an EVENT that is being discriminated against NOT that classification. To suggest a class of people were being discriminated against, you'd need to show that a non-white person attempting to purchase a cake for a White Power Rally was given service but the white person attepmting to purchase it was not. Otherwise, the issue is not the classification of the person but the EVENT in question...and events are not a protected classification.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

tech30528 said:

Our CERN group specifically prohibits racial discrimination. It is a group that provides training for emergency response. So are we discriminating against people who dislike blacks or Mexicans and refusing to provide them with (possibly) life saving training?

Click to expand...

No, you would not be.

If you were specifically prohibiting people who dislike blacks or mexicans, that'd be arguably discriminating.

But by prohibiting racial discrimination, you're prohibiting a specific action and as such you're taking consideration based on individual merit as opposed to a category of people.

"We're not hiring people who are racist against blacks" --> discriminating (and probably prudent and justified discriminating for your described job) as you're disqualifying people simply for fitting into a certain kind of category (racists, specifically towards blacks)

"We're not hiring someone who indicates they will discriminate against people based on their race" ---> Not discriminating, as you're disqualifying people based on their merit of actual actions they will take.

Being racist isn't an action, it's simply a thought process. Discriminating is an action.

Disqualifying someone because they're "racist" is disqualifying them for what they are.

Disqualifying someone because they'd discriminate is disqualifying them for how they act.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Zyphlin said:

And here's where I either disagree with your interpritation of the law and/or disagree with the law (frankly, without actual tangiable cases, this is more likely a disagreement of opinion as it relates to the law).

Click to expand...

It's OK to disagree, this is a message board.

Zyphlin said:

"Same Sex Marries" are not a protected category, even under New Mexico I believe.

If the baker could show that they have served homosexual customers, as you highlight with "females" and "christians" above, then it should show the discrimination is NOT based on sexual orientation but rather disagreement over an event.

If it was sexual orientation, a homosexual person trying to procure a cake for their friends "traditional" marriage would be denied....or a heterosexual person trying to procure a cake for their friends "same sex marriage" would not be denied.

Click to expand...

That's an incorrect application of the premise of Public Accommodation laws. One of those premises is that the business must provide full and equal access to the services routinely offered to the public and not deny services based on the enumerated categories. Different states articulate that principal in different ways. Since you mention baker here is Oregon's (Sweetcakes by Melissa case) and New Mexico (Elaine Photography case). Oregon plainly asserts "Full & Equal", not "partial" or "subset" of services. New Mexico used the term "directly or indirectly" to achieve the same premise. Under the law if a business is open to the general public they must provide THE SAME routine services to members of the public and cannot refuse either all service or only provide a subset of services that they normally offer based on the enumerated categories.




The New Mexico Supreme Court addressed this very issue in the Elane Photography v. Willock decision:

Zyphlin said:

The sticky issue for me would be whether said homosexual couple indicated the cake was for a "same sex marriage" or if they were simply indicating they wanted a cake.

Click to expand...

When wedding cakes are ordered they (the vast majority of times) include "Toppers" the little figures representing the bride & groom, both brides or both grooms and ask for the names of the parties being married.

Kind of hard to order a custom wedding cake without indicating who the couple is or fill out the paperwork to order a customer cake and identify Jane and Joan as the people getting married and not indicate they are a "same sex" (since you used quotes) couple.

Zyphlin said:

A wedding is not a sexual orientation, and within this country one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless it can be shown in some fashion that the business is discriminating against the couple due to their orientation, and not a disagreement with their event, then I don't really see the violation of the law.

Click to expand...

In New Mexico, it was easily shown in the Elaine Photography case. She routinely advertized her services for wedding photography, she had a portfolio of wedding customers. She had no problem doing wedding events. She denied though the customers based on their sexual orientation. If Elaine Photography had a problem doing wedding events, then she was under no requirement to do weddings. But under the principal described earlier she violated the law when she offered those services only to a subset of customers (or to put it the other way denied those same full and equal services to a subset of customers).

Zyphlin said:

As an example I put forward in another thread...

If said baker refused to provide a cake for a White Power Rally, but has provided a cake for a Motorcycle Clubs rally, this would not be a case of violationg public accomodation laws on my reading. Despite the fact that the rally has a distinctive connection to a protected classification, it is still utlimately an EVENT that is being discriminated against NOT that classification. To suggest a class of people were being discriminated against, you'd need to show that a non-white person attempting to purchase a cake for a White Power Rally was given service but the white person attepmting to purchase it was not. Otherwise, the issue is not the classification of the person but the EVENT in question...and events are not a protected classification.

Click to expand...

You right in a way and the NMSC addressed that also, it's a long quote and I'm not going to try to manually fix it like I did above but it's in the previous link on page 20 Sections {55} and {56}.

But remember Elane Photography, the New Mexico case since that is the State we are discussing, has no problem doing wedding events. She actively advertized and displayed a public portfolio of such events establishing that she has a history of providing services to wedding events. Therefore it wasn't the event that was different, it was the sexual orientation of the customers.



>>>.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

1750Texan said:

Your question is too open ended? Discrimination how...What belief?

if you wore a T-shirt into my restuarant saying..."I believe in raping babies"...Can I ban you from my restuarant or does your 1st amendment right trump?

Click to expand...

To clarify that, it would seem many SSM supporters support discrimination of a person based on their views on SSM. So then a business owner could then not discriminate against gay people, but refuse service for anyone who he thinks supports SSM. Which then he could easily assume that any gay people who enters his establishment support SSM and then could refuse them service. Which really doesn't help what people are trying to fight for.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Kreton said:

To clarify that, it would seem many SSM supporters support discrimination of a person based on their views on SSM. So then a business owner could then not discriminate against gay people, but refuse service for anyone who he thinks supports SSM. Which then he could easily assume that any gay people who enters his establishment support SSM and then could refuse them service. Which really doesn't help what people are trying to fight for.

Click to expand...

However that would require you to ask your customers their sexual orientation, if you ask that only of those you assume to be gay - then your ruse to attempt to bypass the law would fail.

If you turned away homosexuals that supported SSCM but did not turn away heterosexuals that supported SSCM then the basis of your discriminatory acts was not based on view of SSCM it was based on sexual orientation. If you asked ONLY the homosexual customers and not the heterosexual customers that would show an attempted ruse to circumvent the law by targeting homosexual. So if you want to ask all your customers whether they support SSCM before giving them service and then denying service equally based on the answer - knock yourself out.

This hairdresser based his refusal on the fact that her position is as governor she does not support Marriage Equality. A position the Governor has articulated in the media and various speeches placing her view in the public domain. If the Governor were dumb enough to file a complaint (it would be a media circus) that the hairdresser was discriminating based on a protected category (in this case religion) the hairdresser could (one would assume) bring in witness after witness of customers that are religious and disagree with SSCM, that proves the basis then is not religion. The basis is that the Governor is a political person in a position to influence Civil Law and therefore he is taking a stand against an individual politician. Something that is not illegal.

Let's apply that to another scenario. I own a restaurant, a pretty good restaurant. A councilman of Italian decent is working very hard to have my property condemned under imminent domain to put in a public parking lot to enhance shopping at a nearby mall. He comes into my restaurant and I refuse him service and tell him to leave my place. He files a complaint and says I discriminated against him because of his ethnicity/national origin. I bring to court witness after witness of Italian decent showing I don't discriminate based on ethnicity/national origin. I've shown that is not the case, the discrimination was based on his political position - something not covered under the law.



>>>>

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Kreton said:

To clarify that, it would seem many SSM supporters support discrimination of a person based on their views on SSM. So then a business owner could then not discriminate against gay people, but refuse service for anyone who he thinks supports SSM. Which then he could easily assume that any gay people who enters his establishment support SSM and then could refuse them service. Which really doesn't help what people are trying to fight for.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this silly idea? I'm not allowed to discriminate against someone for being Christian.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Deuce said:

Where did you get this silly idea? I'm not allowed to discriminate against someone for being Christian.

Click to expand...

No. But you can discriminate for any number of other things that would basically amount to you discriminating against Christians as this hair stylist is showing. Which honestly I don't have a problem with. What I think is retarded is how many people are soooo supportive of someone discriminating in favor of one thing and then they get soooo pissed when someone else does it.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

just another example of how it is unfair and wrong when "they" do it, but it is OK when "we" do it.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Quite an insightful article on this subject of discrimination. The Ingrained Intolerance of Liberal Tolerance | The American Spectator

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

tech30528 said:

Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage* - NY Daily News

Soooo, here it is, the other side of the coin. For all of you who cheered the veto of the Arizona protection of religion bill, we now have the flip side. Governor Martinez' hairdresser refuses to do business with her any more because of her views on gay marriage. Anyone want to try to defend this bigotry? After all the claims of Equality, it seems that equality really ISN'T the point after all.

Personally, I'd sue his panties off just to make a point.

Click to expand...

If gays don't want to do business with those who oppose them that is fine. If businesses want to refuse service to homosexuals that is fine too.

Telling people they have to serve others is wrong, and IMO it creates a slippery slope.

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

Mr.Nick said:

If gays don't want to do business with those who oppose them that is fine. If businesses want to refuse service to homosexuals that is fine too.

Telling people they have to serve others is wrong, and IMO it creates a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Slippery Slope? Were you absent from school when the discussed the civil rights "sit ins" and "bus rides" of the 1950's and '60's?

What do you think that was all about?

Re: Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex

1750Texan said:

Slippery Slope? Were you absent from school when the discussed the civil rights "sit ins" and "bus rides" of the 1950's and '60's?

What do you think that was all about?

Click to expand...

Of course this is not the subject under discussion.