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

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

What baker? I said nothing about a baker, and that isn't the topic of this thread, so I don't "need to explain" anything.

We're talking about a hair stylist who works for himself being able to choose his own clients. On what basis could he be sued? That was my question. If you don't have an answer, then I suggest you move on.

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

DiAnna said:

What baker? I said nothing about a baker, and that isn't the topic of this thread, so I don't "need to explain" anything.

We're talking about a hair stylist who works for himself being able to choose his own clients. On what basis could he be sued? That was my question. If you don't have an answer, then I suggest you move on.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

It's like people think arguments exist in vacuum. I asked a question, because the question is important to the legitimacy of your current claim. The case of the baker, who is a self-employed individual blah blah blah, you know the story yes? I believe you came down stating that the baker could not refuse service, yes? See that "?", that means it's a question. It's called a question mark. Keep an eye out for it in the future, it will help ya when reading posts. If you contend that the baker had no right to discriminate, then YOU need to show in this case why the hairdresser can. The OP is made along the previous made arguments that the baker and others could not discriminate against homosexuals. This is also why previous posts and topics are in play. Really don't see why that had to be explained.

So it's dependent upon the answer. You said "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?". Which is true, but if that's not your argument (that Christians have the right to refuse service to gays), then you've made a dishonest post since you deflect away from the original context of the OP. Which is why I stated what I stated. If you don't think the Baker can refuse service, then you must argue for why this guy can. Not Young Earth Creationist this away by deflection and dishonesty.

So what is it? Did the Baker have right to refuse service? If yes, then there's no issue. If you think the baker can, then it's consistent to contend that the hairdresser can as well. If no, then you have a contradiction and trying to turn the argument around does not erase that contradiction.

Do you get it now? It's really not tough.

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

Ikari said:

*sigh*

It's like people think arguments exist in vacuum. I asked a question, because the question is important to the legitimacy of your current claim. The case of the baker, who is a self-employed individual blah blah blah, you know the story yes? I believe you came down stating that the baker could not refuse service, yes? See that "?", that means it's a question. It's called a question mark. Keep an eye out for it in the future, it will help ya when reading posts. If you contend that the baker had no right to discriminate, then YOU need to show in this case why the hairdresser can. The OP is made along the previous made arguments that the baker and others could not discriminate against homosexuals. This is also why previous posts and topics are in play. Really don't see why that had to be explained.

So it's dependent upon the answer. You said "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?". Which is true, but if that's not your argument (that Christians have the right to refuse service to gays), then you've made a dishonest post since you deflect away from the original context of the OP. Which is why I stated what I stated. If you don't think the Baker can refuse service, then you must argue for why this guy can. Not Young Earth Creationist this away by deflection and dishonesty.

So what is it? Did the Baker have right to refuse service? If yes, then there's no issue. If you think the baker can, then it's consistent to contend that the hairdresser can as well. If no, then you have a contradiction and trying to turn the argument around does not erase that contradiction.

Do you get it now? It's really not tough.

Click to expand...

Slow day, eh? Have to yank up week-old posts to nitpick in order to create an argument where none exists. My question: On what basis could the hairdresser be sued?

If you can't answer that because you're too busy obfuscating and trying to drag other topics into this thread, then I'm not going to waste my time with you. :2bye:

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

DiAnna said:

Slow day, eh? Have to yank up week-old posts to nitpick in order to create an argument where none exists. My question: On what basis could the hairdresser be sued?

If you can't answer that because you're too busy obfuscating and trying to drag other topics into this thread, then I'm not going to waste my time with you. :2bye:

Click to expand...

No, your contention was based on ""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?".

The fact of the matter is, you cannot argue your points. Happens, I'm not faulting you, just pointing out the obvious.

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

I'm all for private businesses (for the most part) being able to offer or refuse services as they see fit.

Photographer doesn't want gay customers? Fine, whatever, that's cool by me.

Hairdresser doesn't want customers that are against gay marriage? Fine, whatever, that's cool by me.

No one should be able to see either of them for that, in my perfect world.

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.

Click to expand...

No, you are not correct. eHarmony did not lose any court case because they discriminated. No one forced them to do anything. eHarmony *still* doesn't provide same sex matching to GLBT's.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Ikari said:

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

Click to expand...

First of all to say a photographer or baker cannot refuse service is a misstatement of the facts. Any business can refuse service for any reason they choose, as long as the reason is not for one limited by law. A photographer or baker sure can refuse service for a variety of reasons: credit check, they have a previous booking, will be on vacation, etc. What they cannot do is refuse service for one of the stated reasons contained in the law.

So, there is a class of laws in each State referred to commonly as "Public Accommodation Laws", these laws make it illegal for a business to refuse to provide the same goods and services to customers based on factors that vary from State-to-State. There is also a Federal Public Accommodation law contained in the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Often the States identify more classes then the Federal Statute.

Public Accommodation laws have been reviewed by both State and Federal courts and found to be a proper exercise (under the Commerce Clause for Federal Law and as a States power to regulate commerce inside the State. You will notice in the New Mexico law cited below that it specifies that goods and services must be offered equally to the public with not "direct or indirect" difference.



When people say that the photographer or baker cannot refuse service, but this hairdresser can?

No the hairdresser CANNOT refuse service (in New Mexico) based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. The baker, the photographer, the hairdresser and the candlestick maker can all refuse service for other reasons - for example to the governor based on that individuals publicly available political position concerning secular law in the State. When contrasted with the photographer (Elane Photography was the New Mexico case) the business advertised for and routinely performed wedding photography. That was a service offered, they refused because of the sexual orientation of the couple - they were in violation of the law because they chose to make a distinction directly based on the sexual orientation of the couple.

If you'd like to read the case you can read the decision here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf


****************************************************

The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.


>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

First of all to say a photographer or baker cannot refuse service is a misstatement of the facts. Any business can refuse service for any reason they choose, as long as the reason is not for one limited by law. A photographer or baker sure can refuse service for a variety of reasons: credit check, the have a previous booking, will be on vacation, etc. What they cannot do is refuse service for one of the stated reasons contained in the law.

So, there is a class of laws in each State referred to commonly as "Public Accommodation Laws", these laws make it illegal for a business to provide the same goods and services to customers based on factors that vary from State-to-State. There is also a Federal Public Accommodation law contained in the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Often the States identify more classes then the Federal Statute.

Public Accommodation laws have been reviewed by both State and Federal courts and found to be a proper exercise (under the Commerce Clause for Federal Law and as a States power to regulate commerce inside the State. You will notice in the New Mexico law cited below that it specifies that goods and services must be offered equally to the public with not "direct or indirect" difference.

New Mexico Statute
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 ;​

When people say that the photographer or baker cannot refuse service, but this hairdresser can?

No the hairdresser CANNOT refuse service (in New Mexico) based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. The baker, the photographer, the hairdresser and the candlestick maker can all refuse service for other reasons - for example to the governor based on that individuals publicly available political position concerning secular law in the State. When contrasted with the photographer (Elane Photography was the New Mexico case) the business advertised for and routinely performed wedding photography. That was a service offered, they refused because of the sexual orientation of the couple - they were in violation of the law because they chose to make a distinction directly based on the sexual orientation of the couple.

If you'd like to read the case you can read the decision here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf


****************************************************

The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.


>>>>

Click to expand...

So in this case, being against same sex marriage or homosexual rights is born mostly from religious belief. Thus the hairdresser cannot discriminate?

it's just funny the hoops y'all jump through, the appeal to authority y'all take, to monkey with laws and just government action to engineer a solution you think is right. No difference here. You cannot argue from base as to why these are separate, you can only appeal to authority. Logical fallacy, BTW.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think it's OK for a website to make there own business model and to selective on the clientele they choose to service.



P.S. - In the interest of honesty you should really stop with the dishonest question that try to paint by position as other that what it is. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and a private business owners right to turn away any customer based on any factor they choose whether it be race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, marital status, veterans status, handicap or if the patron shows up dressed as a one legged pirate and says "Arrrgggg matey!"



>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Ikari said:

So in this case, being against same sex marriage or homosexual rights is born mostly from religious belief. Thus the hairdresser cannot discriminate?

it's just funny the hoops y'all jump through, the appeal to authority y'all take, to monkey with laws and just government action to engineer a solution you think is right. No difference here. You cannot argue from base as to why these are separate, you can only appeal to authority. Logical fallacy, BTW.

Click to expand...

I explained why they are different in detail - you don't want to see it. Nothing personal, but that is your problem not mine.

His refusal of service was based on her secular governmental position as Governor and her position on Civil Marriage. I'm sure if you asked the hairdresser he would have no problems and would cut her hair if she said that she was Catholic and that she supported her Church not performing same-sex Religious Marriages. As a mater of fact being in New Mexico he could probably trot out quite a few customers that don't support Religious Same-sex Marriage. It's her ability to influence secular law that he objects to.

No no, "religion" isn't the reason - it's political position on secular law.



But hey, if the Governor wants to file a claim with the appropriate NM agency that handles them - more power to her.



>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

I think it's OK for a website to make there own business model and to selective on the clientele they choose to service.



P.S. - In the interest of honesty you should really stop with the dishonest question that try to paint by position as other that what it is. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and a private business owners right to turn away any customer based on any factor they choose whether it be race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, marital status, veterans status, handicap or if the patron shows up dressed as a one legged pirate and says "Arrrgggg matey!"



>>>>

Click to expand...

All evidence to the contrary. When someone tries to go anti-establishment, you're the biggest cheerleader, but when the mainstream gets their toes stepped on, you try to identify them by career as opposed to any other criterion. It's either intellectual dishonesty or extremism spin.

Your choice.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:

All evidence to the contrary. When someone tries to go anti-establishment, you're the biggest cheerleader, but when the mainstream gets their toes stepped on, you try to identify them by career as opposed to any other criterion. It's either intellectual dishonesty or extremism spin.

Your choice.

Click to expand...

Sorry you can't understand the difference between discussing what the law should be and the reality of what the law is. You have a narrow opinion based on a few threads I choose to participate in.


Here is another conundrum for you. I support the right of free speech, therefore I support Westboro Baptists Church and their right to be assholes. That does not mean I support their position. Here is another, the Constitution says (and I paraphrase) that peopel born here and under the United States jurisdiction are citizens. That's what the law says. And the current interpretation considers those here illegally as being under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a child born to an illegal alien is a citizen. I disagree with that that is the way it should be, a child should ONLY get US citizenship if the parent is here legally.


If you would like to know my views on other matters, feel free to ask.


>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

First of all to say a photographer or baker cannot refuse service is a misstatement of the facts. Any business can refuse service for any reason they choose, as long as the reason is not for one limited by law.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I think most people know what the law is, more a discussion about whether or not it should be that way.

The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.

Click to expand...

Right. So would you do that? Or is it okay for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind?

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

Sorry you can't understand the difference between discussing what the law should be and the reality of what the law is. You have a narrow opinion based on a few threads I choose to participate in.


Here is another conundrum for you. I support the right of free speech, therefore I support Westboro Baptists Church and their right to be assholes. That does not mean I support their position. Here is another, the Constitution says (and I paraphrase) that peopel born here and under the United States jurisdiction are citizens. That's what the law says. And the current interpretation considers those here illegally as being under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a child born to an illegal alien is a citizen. I disagree with that that is the way it should be, a child should ONLY get US citizenship if the parent is here legally.


If you would like to know my views on other matters, feel free to ask.


>>>>

Click to expand...

I've seen your arguments. It'd be akin to you purporting free speech for Westboro because of religious freedom, but Muslims can't speak freely because "taxi drivers aren't protected".

You can say you support this and that, but you can't WAIT to move the goalposts if it doesn't fit your ideology.

In your world, politicians aren't allowed to exercise religious freedom. Any other occupations you want to oppress while you're at it?

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

OldWorldOrder said:

The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.

Click to expand...

Right. So would you do that? Or is it okay for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind?

Click to expand...

Is discrimination "OK"? No, in this context you are asking for a value judgement and in general I disagree with discrimination. To refuse service to a ____________________ (fill in category of people) is something I'm against. However just because someone else chooses to be a jerk toward ____________________ (fill in category of people) doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.


The question you should have asked: Or is it legal for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind? Yes, see Post #132 as to why.



>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

I explained why they are different in detail - you don't want to see it. Nothing personal, but that is your problem not mine.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is not that I cannot see it, it's that you cannot satisfactorily explain it. You've done nothing but appeal to authority and make up BS to excuse your hypocrisy. It's OK, most people aren't looking for the 2-Way street. They want to Roadhouse it, My Way or the Highway. Many cannot accept the repercussions and responsibilities of freedom; so they must scrounge and flip flop and logical fallacy and deflect as much as possible to try to make it seem like their arguments are anything but the hypocritical pile of propaganda, BS tripe that those arguments actually are.

The Governor's opinion on gay marriage is born from religion, something you'd claim is OK until such exercise violates your sensibilities. Then you turn tail and turn argument. Nothing personal, but that's your problem, not mine.

I do not entertain the ravings of propagandists, so this will be the end of it then. You cannot speak from base, you cannot explain how another man owns the property and labor of another, all you can do is deflect to law (appeal to authority) and gloss over as much as you can so that you can present your 1-Way street as a reasoned position. But free is a 2-Way street. Always has been. Always will be.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:

I've seen your arguments. It'd be akin to you purporting free speech for Westboro because of religious freedom, but Muslims can't speak freely because "taxi drivers aren't protected".

Click to expand...

That's because that is exactly what these arguments come down to.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

Gipper said:

I've seen your arguments. It'd be akin to you purporting free speech for Westboro because of religious freedom, but Muslims can't speak freely because "taxi drivers aren't protected".

Click to expand...

I don't know where you get this but I've brought up how the Muslim Taxi Drivers in Minnesota violated the law because they refused to pick up disabled people with service dogs many times in these threads

Gipper said:

You can say you support this and that, but you can't WAIT to move the goalposts if it doesn't fit your ideology.

Click to expand...

Bull****, I've shifted no "goalposts". Elane Photography clearly violated the law and it went all the way to the NM Supreme Court (see previously supplied link). The hairdresser broke no law because the reason he refused service is outside the scope of New Mexico Statute 8-1-7 (Unlawful discriminatory practice).

Gipper said:

In your world, politicians aren't allowed to exercise religious freedom. Any other occupations you want to oppress while you're at it?

Click to expand...

In my world politician's are free to exercise their religious freedom all day long and twice on Sundays if they want to. However "religious freedom" does not mean they can codify their beliefs in the law and make everyone else subject to them.



>>>>

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

Is discrimination "OK"? No, in this context you are asking for a value judgement and in general I disagree with discrimination. To refuse service to a ____________________ (fill in category of people) is something I'm against. However just because someone else chooses to be a jerk toward ____________________ (fill in category of people) doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

Click to expand...

So should it be illegal or legal in this case?

The question you should have asked: Or is it legal for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind? Yes, see Post #132 as to why.

Click to expand...

Okay, well I'm actually asking the question I wanted to ask. I specifically told you, in the very post you quoted, that I think everyone knows what the law is, did you miss that part? I'm not asking you for your interpretation of the law as it stands. I'm asking you if you think this type of discrimination should legal or illegal.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

WorldWatcher said:

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.


>>>>

Click to expand...

correction this is what businesses tried to do and they are being sued over it by gay activist.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

THis thread is just another perfect example of how many people have no clue what law, facts and rights are.

Just people confusing "feelings" and opinion and biased "emotion" with facts and it shows bad.

Illegal discrimination has very specific definitions, they vary some by state, county municipality but they are defined. If it doesn't fit that definition then its not illegal, if it does then it is illegal :shrug:

Never understood why some people cant grasp this very simply concept.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

AGENT J said:

THis thread is just another perfect example of how many people have no clue what law, facts and rights are.

Just people confusing "feelings" and opinion and biased "emotion" with facts and it shows bad.

Illegal discrimination has very specific definitions, they vary some by state, county municipality but they are defined. If it doesn't fit that definition then its not illegal, if it does then it is illegal :shrug:

Never understood why some people cant grasp this very simply concept.

Click to expand...

...the question is what discrimination should be okay and what should not. Not what is legal and what is not.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

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

So what?

It's private enterprise - imo, he/she should be able to refuse to serve anyone they want, for any reason they want.

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

tech30528 said:

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

Click to expand...

As I'm sure (or rather hope) has been said a thousand times in this thread already, there is a distinct difference between refusing to do business because of a position they take and refusing to do business with someone because of a fundamental attribute for which they may not be discriminated against.

The governor of New Mexico made a conscious decision to oppose same-sex marriage. That has nothing whatsoever in common with someone being of a particular sexual persuasion or gender or any other attribute that is part of a person's fundamental nature and as such not subject to change.

If said stylist had discarded the governor's business specifically because the governor is Christian (I have no idea if they are), that would be very different.

Re: The Other Side of the Coin

OldWorldOrder said:

...the question is what discrimination should be okay and what should not. Not what is legal and what is not.

Click to expand...

weird did you ask me that? nope
did anybody ask me that? nope
did the OP even ask that? nope

the op is one of the ones that doesn't understand the law or rights of people and suggests suing (even though there's nothing to sue for) and says this violates equality, which it doesnt.

ANd like my post said there are MANY in this thread that referred to law and legality and rights and got it 100% wrong lol this is a fact.
as far as right or wrong that all subjective opinion that is pretty meanignless and will be different many times when answered by many people.

BUT if you would like to address a different topic and have a different question for me by all means ask, im an open book

IMO the law/individual rights are pretty spot on, they may need some tweaking here and there but im pretty good with:

age, gender, race/origin/color, religion sexual orientation etc I think they are pretty spot on. DO you think those are bad criteria?

Do you you have a specific question/scenario, ill gladly give my "opinion"