Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 224

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

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: The Other Side of the Coin

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    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.


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

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    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?

  3. #63
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: The Other Side of the Coin

    Quote Originally Posted by tech30528 View Post
    So if we can assume that most gay people are liberal, is it OK to refuse them service because they are liberal?

    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.



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-05-14 at 10:47 AM.

  4. #64
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    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).
    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.

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: The Other Side of the Coin

    Quote Originally Posted by tech30528 View Post
    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?
    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.

  6. #66
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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).
    It's OK to disagree, this is a message board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    "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.

    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.


    Oregon Revised Statutes
    § 659A.403
    Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

    New Mexico Revised Statutes
    28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
    F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods 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 ;

    New Mexico One Source of Law®
    ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes


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

    "We are not persuaded by Elane Photography’s argument that it does not violate the NMHRA
    because it will photograph a gay person (for example, in single-person portraits) so long as
    the photographs do not reflect the client’s sexual preferences. The NMHRA prohibits public
    accommodations from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the
    basis of protected classifications. Section 28-1-7(F). For example, if a restaurant offers a
    full menu to male customers, it may not refuse to serve entrees to women, even if it will
    serve them appetizers. The NMHRA does not permit businesses to offer a “limited menu”
    of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the
    protected categories. Therefore, Elane Photography’s willingness to offer some services
    to Willock does not cure its refusal to provide other services that it offered to the general
    public.

    http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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).



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.



    >>>.
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-05-14 at 12:33 PM.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    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?
    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.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #68
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    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.


    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.



    >>>>

  9. #69
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    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.
    Where did you get this silly idea? I'm not allowed to discriminate against someone for being Christian.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Where did you get this silly idea? I'm not allowed to discriminate against someone for being Christian.
    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.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •