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

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

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

Thanks to WorldWatcher, I am now convinced that all the baker had to do was say to the gay couple, "I do not agree with your support of same sex marriage, therefore I refuse to sell you this cake". Not because they're gay, but because the baker doesn't support same sex marriage.

There. Now it's based on political belief. Throw the gay couple out of your bakery.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

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

Gipper said:
Thanks to WorldWatcher, I am now convinced that all the baker had to do was say to the gay couple, "I do not agree with your support of same sex marriage, therefore I refuse to sell you this cake". Not because they're gay, but because the baker doesn't support same sex marriage.

There. Now it's based on political belief. Throw the gay couple out of your bakery.

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.

>>>>

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

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

WorldWatcher said:
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.

>>>>

We all circumvent - the same way you did when you said "politician" isn't protected, essentially trying to compare apples and oranges.

I could've easily tried to dig up what the gay couple did for a living and say "<enter name of two professions here> are not protected".

RiverDad · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

rathi said:
Depends on the circumstances, but discriminating on irrational prejudice is definitely bad.

Why? If I prefer to sleep with brunettes and redheads turn me off, why should I subject myself to the "horror" of sleeping with a redhead simply to claim the "prize" of not being an irrational discriminator?

I have no duty to "harm" myself in order to make someone else feel good about themselves.

The amount of real-life suffering caused by anti-discrimination laws in the 50 years of their existence is absolutely negligible.

Oh, is that the relevant metric? I don't imagine that forcibly converting everyone in America to Catholicism or Scientology would produce any measurable harm either. It's not like people are going to develop cancer or have to have a limb amputated as a result of being forcibly converted to a religion that they don't believe.

Here's the point - it's not up to YOU to decide for ME what level of harm I must endure in order to fulfill your ideological goals.

Not being able to refuse service to a black client at your hotel doesn't make your quality of life worse.

For someone like you, who doesn't care, then yeah, this doesn't make your quality of life any worse. For someone who does object, forced servitude is a huge deal. Think of it like this - prostitutes don't care who they have sex with so long as they are paid. People who are not prostitutes seem to get really upset about the idea of being forced to have sex with someone that they don't want to have sex with. There's this little matter of personal freedom that is a wrench in the works and screwing up your great design. You may think that the person that you assign to have sex with Woman #1 is a mighty attractive fellow. What you think though is irrelevant. It's what Woman #1 thinks that is important. Whether you agree with her assessment or not is irrelevant. Whether you would sleep with the man that she rejects is also irrelevant.

The point here is that your values on the issue of how people choose to form associations is irrelevant to their exercise of their own freedom.

ludin · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Nope.

Public Accommodation laws do not require the sale of any goods and services not normally offered to the public. If a Muslim business does not normally sell kosher food they are not required to add it to their menu. However if a Muslim does decide to add it to their menu, they cannot refuse to sell it to a Japanese person based on race.

Wrong again.

Nazi is not a class of person protected under race, religion, ethnicity, gender or age (Federal and NM law) or in addition a sexual orientation (NM Law).

>>>>

you are not correct on this either. eharmony is the perfect example. they do not sell services for gay people to find relationships yet that didnt' stop them from being sued and losing over it. their services were directly offered to straight people.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

ludin said:
you are not correct on this either. eharmony is the perfect example. they do not sell services for gay people to find relationships yet that didnt' stop them from being sued and losing over it. their services were directly offered to straight people.

Sorry your faulty assumption is that different-sex dating services are different than same-sex dating services. The services offered were dating services. Eharmoney provided dating services. Just as a baker sells wedding cakes and can't say "I sell white wedding cakes for white people" but don't make "Jewish wedding cakes for Jews". The product is still a wedding cake. In eHarmony's case their service was a dating service. Some states provide that businesses can't discriminate based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation.

If eHarmony had offerred "whites only dating services" it would have run afoul of the law in New Jersey and California (two state where they were sued).

Even though they were sued, eHarmony still doesn't provide services for same-sex matching directly. They setup a separate site to provide those services called "Compatible Partners" and provide a link to it on their site.

eHarmony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>>>>

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Sorry your faulty assumption is that different-sex dating services are different than same-sex dating services. The services offered were dating services. Eharmoney provided dating services. Just as a baker sells wedding cakes and can't say "I sell white wedding cakes for white people" but don't make "Jewish wedding cakes for Jews". The product is still a wedding cake. In eHarmony's case their service was a dating service. Some states provide that businesses can't discriminate based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation.

If eHarmony had offerred "whites only dating services" it would have run afoul of the law in New Jersey and California (two state where they were sued).

Even though they were sued, eHarmony still doesn't provide services for same-sex matching directly. They setup a separate site to provide those services called "Compatible Partners" and provide a link to it on their site.

eHarmony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>>>>

Care to tell me about your outrage over sites like JDate and BlackPeopleMeet.com?

ludin · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Sorry your faulty assumption is that different-sex dating services are different than same-sex dating services. The services offered were dating services. Eharmoney provided dating services. Just as a baker sells wedding cakes and can't say "I sell white wedding cakes for white people" but don't make "Jewish wedding cakes for Jews". The product is still a wedding cake. In eHarmony's case their service was a dating service. Some states provide that businesses can't discriminate based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation.

If eHarmony had offerred "whites only dating services" it would have run afoul of the law in New Jersey and California (two state where they were sued).

Even though they were sued, eHarmony still doesn't provide services for same-sex matching directly. They setup a separate site to provide those services called "Compatible Partners" and provide a link to it on their site.

eHarmony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>>>>

you are not correct.

there is a difference in heterosexual dating sites and gay sites. they go after a different market and there is nothing until someone files a lawsuit that requires gay sites to offer services to straight people.

their software was tailored to heterosexual relationships. they did not offer services to gays. yet now they are forced to by threat of law.
there are a ton of dating sites out there that cater to specific criteria. they do not offer all solutions to everyone so it is you that have the faulty assumption.

ludin · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:
Care to tell me about your outrage over sites like JDate and BlackPeopleMeet.com?

exactly the problem is no one has sued them yet. i think people should start playing their own game and start sueing these gay only businesses and sites for discrimination.
if they want to play the discrimination game then lets play the discrimination game.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:
Care to tell me about your outrage over sites like JDate and BlackPeopleMeet.com?

1. I'm not "outraged", personally I don't have a problem with any business tailoring it's business model as they see fit. My opinion of what the law should be and how the law functions are two different things.

2. You don't have to be Jewish to use JDate (You Don't Have to Be Jewish to Love JDate - NYTimes.com).

3. And one would have to assume that one doesn't have to be black to use BlackPeopleMeet.com., however BPM is owned by Match.com and provides multiple services "targeted" at different demographics - same company, just different marketing.

>>>>

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

ludin said:
exactly the problem is no one has sued them yet. i think people should start playing their own game and start sueing these gay only businesses and sites for discrimination.
if they want to play the discrimination game then lets play the discrimination game.

May as well. Straight white Christians being passive seems to be a bad thing these days.

When people clamor for "equality", it doesn't mean that they want to uplift the minority. It means they want to drag down the majority.

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
1. I'm not "outraged", personally I don't have a problem with any business tailoring it's business model as they see fit. My opinion of what the law should be and how the law functions are two different things.

2. You don't have to be Jewish to use JDate (You Don't Have to Be Jewish to Love JDate - NYTimes.com).

3. And one would have to assume that one doesn't have to be black to use BlackPeopleMeet.com., however BPM is owned by Match.com and provides multiple services "targeted" at different demographics - same company, just different marketing.

>>>>

Oh...well thank you for this. While we're at it, can you send me a screenshot of the box you have to click that says "I agree that I am heterosexual" when signing up for eHarmony? I'll bait my breath now.

WorldWatcher said:
Some states provide that businesses can't discriminate based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation.

So tell me...what do JDate and BlackPeopleMeet use for discrimination, since it's obviously not religion or race.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

ludin said:
you are not correct.

there is a difference in heterosexual dating sites and gay sites. they go after a different market and there is nothing until someone files a lawsuit that requires gay sites to offer services to straight people.

their software was tailored to heterosexual relationships. they did not offer services to gays. yet now they are forced to by threat of law.
there are a ton of dating sites out there that cater to specific criteria. they do not offer all solutions to everyone so it is you that have the faulty assumption.

Actually I am correct as to the functioning of the law, otherwise they would not have felt needed to setup a companion site to handle the different demographic.

>>>>

RiverDad · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
1. I'm not "outraged", personally I don't have a problem with any business tailoring it's business model as they see fit. My opinion of what the law should be and how the law functions are two different things.

2. You don't have to be Jewish to use JDate (You Don't Have to Be Jewish to Love JDate - NYTimes.com).

3. And one would have to assume that one doesn't have to be black to use BlackPeopleMeet.com., however BPM is owned by Match.com and provides multiple services "targeted" at different demographics - same company, just different marketing.

Maybe your eyes are sharper than mine, can you point out where the "Female" field for data entry can be found on the ManMate homosexual dating site and where the "Male" field for data entry can be found on the Pink Cupid lesbian dating site?

ludin · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Actually I am correct as to the functioning of the law, otherwise they would not have felt needed to setup a companion site to handle the different demographic.

>>>>

they were forced to setup a companion site.

that would be like me walking into a muslim deli and suing him because he doesn't offer ham. he is discriminating against me and my religion because it allows me to eat ham and he doesn't offer it.

not all companies are tailored to serve all people you can't come up with bogus discrimination lawsuits simply because they don't offer the services you require.
gay dating sites do not offer all services to heterosexual people therefore they are discriminating against heterosexual people. someone just needs to file a lawsuit.

the reason we don't is that we have no reason to go to a gay website to look for heterosexual people. same thing for gays they have no need to go to a heterosexual site and sue when the site doesn't offer the services they want.

ludin · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

RiverDad said:
Maybe your eyes are sharper than mine, can you point out where the "Female" field for data entry can be found on the ManMate homosexual dating site and where the "Male" field for data entry can be found on the Pink Cupid lesbian dating site?

lets get the lawyers going file a class action suit for millions of dollars for discrimination.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

ludin said:
lets get the lawyers going file a class action suit for millions of dollars for discrimination.

Yep, trying to nickle-n-dime some point is silly. If Jdate doesn't allow non-Jews to join (which they do) - research what state they are incorporated in, and sue them for religious discrimination if you want. If BlackPeopleMeet doesn't allow Asians to join - research what state they are incorporated in, and sue them for racial discrimination if you want. If MaleMate and PickCupid don't allow straights to join - research what state they are incorporated in and check to see if sexual orientation is covered, and sue them for sexual orientation discrimination if you want.

If you guys think they are doing something illegal go to their site and create an account and find out. If they are, file a complaint. That's what you can do.

What part of "businesses should be able to establish their own business model and accept or reject customers as they wish" do ya'll not get? Personally I think Public Accommodation laws should apply to government entities and their business dealings only.

>>>>

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Yep, trying to nickle-n-dime some point is silly. If Jdate doesn't allow non-Jews to join (which they do) - research what state they are incorporated in, and sue them for religious discrimination if you want. If BlackPeopleMeet doesn't allow Asians to join - research what state they are incorporated in, and sue them for racial discrimination if you want. If MaleMate and PickCupid don't allow straights to join - research what state they are incorporated in and check to see if sexual orientation is covered, and sue them for sexual orientation discrimination if you want.

If you guys think they are doing something illegal go to their site and create an account and find out. If they are, file a complaint. That's what you can do.

What part of "businesses should be able to establish their own business model and accept or reject customers as they wish" do ya'll not get? Personally I think Public Accommodation laws should apply to government entities and their business dealings only.

>>>>

I'd really like to know where you get this "gays can't sign up on eHarmony" crap from. Do a bunch of pink bells and lisp-filled whistles go off if they put in a credit card number?

Ikari · Mar 11, 2014

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.

I would defend his bigotry. But then again, I think that private business owners should be allowed to deny their service to whomever they desire.

In the context of the people claiming ownership of another person's property and labor (which is the cornerstone of any argument demanding service when no rights have been violated), this man has done wrong, should be fined by the government and not allowed to discriminate against others.

But dollars to donuts, all the people arguing that gay people own other folk will reverse argument here.

Ikari · Mar 11, 2014

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.

You need rights violations, and even then the government can only act in the specific cases where rights have been violated. You have no right to another man's property or labor.

WorldWatcher · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:
I'd really like to know where you get this "gays can't sign up on eHarmony" crap from. Do a bunch of pink bells and lisp-filled whistles go off if they put in a credit card number?

Where did I say that a "gays can't sign up on eHarmony" I said "eHarmony still doesn't provide services for same-sex matching directly" (See Post #106) and they didn't at the time as they would not match men to men or women to women. Anyone could probably setup and account (paid or unpaid), but they would not do the matching - until they setup the companion site.

So, sure gays can sign up, but if I remember the case correctly (I mean it was a number of years ago). The custom software would not "match" males to males (or females to females). Gender preference wasn't one of the items that was selectable it was hard coded into the algorithm. IIRC a gay man or lesbian could sigh up, but they would only be matched with the opposite gender. Now they have "Compatible Partners" which does offer same gender matching, the link is right on their website.

>>>>

Ikari · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
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.

>>>>

And how does the other way go? When people say that the photographer or baker cannot refuse service, but this hairdresser can?

Gipper · Mar 11, 2014

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:
Where did I say that a "gays can't sign up on eHarmony" I said "eHarmony still doesn't provide services for same-sex matching directly" (See Post #106) and they didn't at the time as they would not match men to men or women to women. Anyone could probably setup and account (paid or unpaid), but they would not do the matching - until they setup the companion site.

So, sure gays can sign up, but if I remember the case correctly (I mean it was a number of years ago). The custom software would not "match" males to males (or females to females). Gender preference wasn't one of the items that was selectable it was hard coded into the algorithm. IIRC a gay man or lesbian could sigh up, but they would only be matched with the opposite gender. Now they have "Compatible Partners" which does offer same gender matching, the link is right on their website.

>>>>

Then I guess there was no need for a lawsuit, right? Or is it just okay when a website catering to the fringe does it?

Ikari · Mar 11, 2014

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

Mithros said:
It's a tricky concept because there are competing liberties at work.

Say you owned a bar. A group of skinheads moves in and wants to make your bar their neighborhood bar. It's fairly likely that a constant skinhead presence at your bar is going to negatively affect other customers, harming your business. It would seem obvious that a business should be well within their rights to kick the skinheads out. But can a business owner kick someone out because they suspect someone may be racist? Put another way, a bar is going to be equally adverse to being frequented by black gang members. But can they deny someone entrance because they're black and wear saggy pants. Wouldn’t that likely be racial discrimination?

What we're really asking is where my right to be included meets your right to exclude me. And I don't think that line is very clear.

That's not it at all. What you're asking is ownership of another man's property and labor. What it should be is when one's right to their own property and labor comes into conflict with the rights of others. Say for emergency care, the right to life. Then you have competing rights and you can say the right to life outweighs the right to property. What people don't like about the fundamental is that there are some services which don't involve rights. Say a bakery. And they want that bakery to serve whom they want when they want. So they have to make flip flopping claims to allow some but exclude others because the ramifications of freedom are too great for them to bear. But no man own's another man's property or labor. And that's the base.

Ikari · Mar 11, 2014

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:

But you've picked the other side? Yes? The baker cannot discriminate. So what you need to explain is why discriminate is OK so long as it's done according to your standards.