Discrimination: Susana Martinez Hairstylist Quits Her Over Her Views

Despite the progress we’ve made in America over the years, discrimination and bigotry still raise their ugly heads on a daily basis. Discrimination is defined as: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs to rather than on individual merit.

The fact that New Mexico elected a female governor, Susana Martinez, for the first time would be an indication of just how far we’ve come in the war against discrimination. Martinez would probably, before today, have thought that her days of being discriminated against were over.

But alas, discrimination has reared it’s ugly head in the form of a gay hairstylist named Antonio Darden.

Governor Susana Martinez has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage.

Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio’s Hair Studio in Santa Fe, said he cut Martinez’ hair three times, but that’s it – unless she changes her mind about gay marriage.

“The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden said. “Because of her stances and her views on this I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no again.”

The governor has said she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that does not cut it with Darden.

No doubt the irony of such discrimination will be lost on our friends on the left side of the aisle, who are perfectly fine with discrimination as long as the person being discriminated against is someone who is conservative, Republican, believes in God, or otherwise just disagrees with them. We have such a long way to go in the fight against discrimination.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 22, 2012.
Filed under Gay Marriage.
Tagged with: .
I'm not an author, lawyer, or professor. These seem to be the most common careers of bloggers these days. I'm just an average, commonsense, conservative who lives in a red state that flipped blue. America is lacking in the commonsense department. We've got plenty of lawyers and professors.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    Antonio would be the first to scream discrimination if his clientele were to drop him and go elsewhere. 

  • SoBeRight

    “We have such a long way to go in the fight against discrimination.”

    Right on! We just need to do what Antonio Darden has done… just say no when you encounter someone who discriminates the way Susana Martinez does.

    Give her back some of her own medicine.

    Any elected official who thinks gays and lesbians deserve fewer rights than others should be scorned.

    right on!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

      And Stephen now admits he is gay as well. 

      • SoBeRight

         I’m not gay, I’m not Stephen, and you are obviously an asshole.

        and I’m 3 for 3 in getting this right.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

          I have been called worse.  Have a nice day Stephen.

          • SoBeRight

             If you continue to harass me I will ask that you be banned.

            First, last and only warning.

          • Jwb10001

            who put you in charge, you call someone an ass hole then threaten to have THEM banned? Wow just wow.

          • LissaKay

            Hey! How can I get on this banned wagon too?

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

            Are y’all some of those little freaks who troll conservative sites begging to be banned so you can brag to your lefty friends?  Seems so pointless, but if Mom won’t let you have your little friends for a sleepover and they can trace prank calls now, what’s a tweener to do?

            But as for you personally:  try harder.

            ON EDIT: Oops, see you aren’t one of them. You asked about joining the ban parade, I apologize for my error.

            Don’t accept rides from those guys.

          • JWH

            Unless Z has some kind of pull with Wizbang’s administration, that’s an empty threat.

          • SoBeRight

             It worked.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Go away cream puff.

          • Jwb10001

            who put you in charge, you call someone an ass hole then threaten to have THEM banned? Wow just wow.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Go for it.  Add me to your “to be banned” list and mail it to kevin@wizbangblog.com.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             He’ll be expecting you.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

             Suck on it, Nancy.

          • Evil Otto

            That is the least intimidating threat I have ever read. I love how you think it sounds tough (“First, last and only warning.”).

          • SoBeRight

             If you continue to harass me I will ask that you be banned.

            First, last and only warning.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

          I have been called worse.  Have a nice day Stephen.

    • LissaKay

      How exactly does a belief that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God equate to discrimination? Has Martinez enacted or proposed any legislation that singles out gays for special restrictions? How exactly has she discriminated?

      What is actually going on is Darden doesn’t like her opinions, and on that basis is refusing her service. I hope he understands if some of his other customers who hold similar beliefs as Martinez decide to patronize a stylist who is less bigoted.

      It cuts both ways (no pun intended).

    • LissaKay

      Any elected official who thinks gays and lesbians deserve fewer rights than others should be scorned.

      They should have no fewer rights, and they should not have more rights.

      No more protected classes. Equal rights for ALL.

  • LissaKay

    Google Senator Stacey Campfield and Bistro by the Bijou

    One of our state senators – one who is well known for speaking out in a way that makes liberal head explode and even conservatives cringe sometimes – spoke on a radio show about homosexuality and AIDS. His remarks raised hackles – he had presented some ideas that were not quite factual, and some that are fairly controversial regarding AIDS and the population segments that have the highest rate of transmission. He currently has a bill being considered that would prohibit discussion of sexuality in classrooms for children in elementary and middle school. It has been nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

    A few days after this radio show appearance, Sen. Campfield went to a restaurant to eat lunch. The owner of the restaurant asked him to leave. No wait … she screamed that she would not serve bigoted, hateful, f-ing homophobe and he was to get the hell out.

    The community cheered the restaurant owner. My husband fact-checked the Senator and found that he was about 90% correct, per the CDC stats. Go figure.

    • SoBeRight

      They cheered, and rightly so.

      “His remarks raised hackles – he had presented some ideas that were not quite factual…”

      Gee, why would anyone object to a elected representative who turns out to be a bigoted asshole liar?

      • LissaKay

        The Senator was not lying, his factual errors were made in good faith, if ignorant. Newer information refuted some of this statements, in particular, the origin of AIDs. The rest … well, the CDC backs him up as does a AIDs counselor with whom the Senator appeared on TV to discuss the matter.
        http://bit.ly/xrkef3
        http://bit.ly/xfVRF1

        As for the restaurant owner, in a later interview, she could not state a specific objection to the Senator other than she disagrees with his views, based on his Catholic faith, that homosexuality is a sin. She does not object to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, nor could she explain how he was “legislating hate”. She merely had caught wind of the controversy over the radio show – which was reported out of context by a HuffBlo blogger – and rode the wave of indignation to a bit of grandstanding herself.
        http://bit.ly/AoIEfO

        Name calling on someone who holds views to which you disagree is childish, by the way. I don’t know if anyone has pointed that out to you yet, but there ya go ….

        • SoBeRight

          Really? So name calling is frowned upon here? I’ll keep that in mind while Retired Military follows me around the site…

          Campfield made national news again last week after he blamed the AIDS virus on a gay airline pilot having sex with monkeys and called the disease “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual intercourse. He made the comments during a radio interview on Sirius XM’s gay-lesbian channel, OutQ. Apparently he hasn’t read the recent report that around one third of AIDs cases are spread by heterosexual people.

          And this moron (I’m sorry, “mentally challenged person”) is writing laws about what can be taught in schools about sex?

          Are you serious? You’re defending this guys remarks as “The Senator was not lying, his factual errors were made in good faith,
          if ignorant. Newer information refuted some of this statements, in
          particular, the origin of AIDs.”

          This clown believes it is “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual intercourse and you think its ok for him to decide what is taught in school about sex?

          And that’s just the beginning of the hate this guys tries to spread.

          • LissaKay

            The data shows that 53% of all HIV cases involve male to male sex. Three times as many men have HIV as women, even though it is much easier to transmit the virus from male to female.

            More statistics”:
            MSM (Men who have sex with men) represent 2% of the population; however, their HIV diagnosis rate is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
            MSM is the only risk group with increasing numbers of new HIV infections annually, and they account for more than half of all new infections in the United States each year

            Blacks/African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV. They represent about 12% of the population but are almost half of all new HIV infections.

            The CDC issued an updated “fact sheet” covering new information in 2008.

            MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections). While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

            In their chart of the most affected groups, straight white males aren’t included at all.

            The Lancet published a study in 2009 that calculated the per exposure risk for transmitting HIV based on 25 different groups and found that the risk of transmitting HIV during heterosexual contact as .04% male to female and .08% male to female. The risk for receptive anal sex was 34 times higher at 1.7%. Let’s break that number down a bit. On average, it takes over 50 unprotected sex acts with a known infected partner to transmit HIV.

            50.

            Are the folks at the CDC are a bunch of ignorant, racist homophobes who don’t understand or care about the truth? Is the Lancet part of a conservative conspiracy to bully and marginalize homosexuals?

            Or is the truth somewhat different than we have been led to believe? Do we completely ostracize these organizations for speaking the uncomfortable truth, that HIV is a disease which strikes mostly at gay men and is a result of their lifestyle?

            What are the high risk activities?

            Unprotected sex? Check

            Multiple partners? Check

            Anal or rough sex? Check

            Folks these are the facts and getting angry at the folks who present them doesn’t change them.

          • SoBeRight

            facts?

            Facts like “Campfield made national news again last week after he blamed the AIDS virus on a gay airline pilot having sex with monkeys and called the disease “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual intercourse.”

            Seriously? You’re defending this guy as someone who should decide what sex education is taught in the classroom?

          • LissaKay

            I’m not defending him, I am defending the facts … as he stated them and as given by the CDC. Call them up and call them bigoted, why don’t you?

            Further, the theory that HIV was first transmitted to humans via monkey actually was a legitimate theory proposed by researchers at one time. Patient 0 – the first human identified with the infection – was an airline steward. The pilot bit came about in a theatrical dramatization. He was off on the details and not up to date with current theories on the origins of HIV.

            I do hope you know the meaning of the word “Virtually” and note that he did not say impossible … he said VIRTUALLY impossible. The risk of HIV infection is 34 times higher in gay sex than in heterosexual sex.

            You really should do some research on this so you won’t appear so ignorant.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/5AX37XLWBDFKL3FREU6RIYZJ5A Laura Kuechenmeister

            I’m pretty sure Radiolab went further back in the Patient 0 thing, and it’s actually not true that the airline steward was actually the first human with HIV.

          • SoBeRight

            Truth has no consequence in the wing nut arena. They worship the lies they like and think there is no room for the truth and facts.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             ”All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” remains as true of left and centrist as it does to the right, no more, no less.

          • jim_m

             Why don’t you actually respond to what she wrote?  She cited the CDC and studies from the Lancet.  And you can’t be bothered to make even the slightest acknowledgment that she has backed up her assertions with real and credible information.

            Pretty sad that you have to change the subject.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

             I think you misunderstand his purpose here.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Possibly.

          • jim_m

            Sorry.  I thought that I was indirectly pointing out what his purpose was.

          • SoBeRight

             ”"Campfield made national news again last week after he blamed the AIDS
            virus on a gay airline pilot having sex with monkeys and called the
            disease “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual
            intercourse.”" is not creedible information.

            The guy isn’t qualified to decide what should be taught in the schools.

            And that’s what she’s ignoring… and refuses to acknowledge. Making excuses for his stupidity won’t work – he’s still stupid.

          • LissaKay

            He seems rather fixated on that monkey sex …

          • LissaKay

            Oh and let’s not forget one more important fact … 80% of HIV infections that women get through heterosexual contact is with a man who had himself been infected via MSM sex. And from them to the innocent babies too.

            The truth is hateful to those who hate the truth.

          • SoBeRight

             ” he blamed the AIDS
            virus on a gay airline pilot having sex with monkeys and called the
            disease “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual
            intercourse.”

            that is not “the truth”…

          • LissaKay

            These other folks are right. You are an idiot. I can’t lower myself that far to play your little troll games without a frontal lobotomy. Sorry, I prefer smart trolls.

          • SoBeRight

            Hearing you defend that know-nothing clown has been amusing. Please come back soon – you make my point for me … don’t run away next time. Stand up and defend the stupid people you admire.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             You are an exemplar of your cause.

          • SoBeRight

            As are you.

          • LissaKay

            If you actually read anything I wrote, and you had a third-grade level ability to comprehend the written word, you might not be making such a fool of yourself here. I’m not running away. It appears it is you that lacks the courage to engage in intellectual debate. I am simply not going to repeatedly state what I have already said before, just because you are not capable of understanding it.

          • SoBeRight

            I uderstand, just
            disagree. Thatclown should not legislate what is taught ins chools.

        • SoBeRight

          Really? So name calling is frowned upon here? I’ll keep that in mind while Retired Military follows me around the site…

          Campfield made national news again last week after he blamed the AIDS virus on a gay airline pilot having sex with monkeys and called the disease “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual intercourse. He made the comments during a radio interview on Sirius XM’s gay-lesbian channel, OutQ. Apparently he hasn’t read the recent report that around one third of AIDs cases are spread by heterosexual people.

          And this moron (I’m sorry, “mentally challenged person”) is writing laws about what can be taught in schools about sex?

          Are you serious? You’re defending this guys remarks as “The Senator was not lying, his factual errors were made in good faith,
          if ignorant. Newer information refuted some of this statements, in
          particular, the origin of AIDs.”

          This clown believes it is “virtually impossible” to contract via heterosexual intercourse and you think its ok for him to decide what is taught in school about sex?

          And that’s just the beginning of the hate this guys tries to spread.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

        You mean like Obama?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

        You mean like Obama?

      • donwalk

        The imature potty mouth strikes again – so impressive!

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       Sounds like a restaurant in need of a boycott.  That blade cuts both ways.

    • jim_m

       Gays are also militating to be allowed to donate blood again.  Despite the evidence that donor disease testing does not catch every unit that is positive for HIV they demand to be accepted as blood donors.  Demands like this from the gay community are evidence that they don’t really give a damn about society or what the effects of their wants are on others. 

      You can be 100% right in your information and they still won’t care.  They will call you a homophobe for merely pointing out the truth that their lifestyle sometimes puts them at greater risk than anyone else for certain diseases. 

      evidence the idiot ZGoFish.  He doesn’t care that it is true that Gays still are far more at risk to carry HIV.  He thinks that this information should be suppressed and anyone who has the temerity to voice the truth should be silenced.  He doesn’t care that we spend millions of dollars every year to keep HIV out of our blood supply.  He would love o see it back in there and tens of thousands of innocent people being infected every year just so he can have his social justice utopia.

    • jim_m

       Gays are also militating to be allowed to donate blood again.  Despite the evidence that donor disease testing does not catch every unit that is positive for HIV they demand to be accepted as blood donors.  Demands like this from the gay community are evidence that they don’t really give a damn about society or what the effects of their wants are on others. 

      You can be 100% right in your information and they still won’t care.  They will call you a homophobe for merely pointing out the truth that their lifestyle sometimes puts them at greater risk than anyone else for certain diseases. 

      evidence the idiot ZGoFish.  He doesn’t care that it is true that Gays still are far more at risk to carry HIV.  He thinks that this information should be suppressed and anyone who has the temerity to voice the truth should be silenced.  He doesn’t care that we spend millions of dollars every year to keep HIV out of our blood supply.  He would love o see it back in there and tens of thousands of innocent people being infected every year just so he can have his social justice utopia.

      • SoBeRight

        “Gays are also militating to be allowed to donate blood again.”

        Uhm, I’ll call BS on that one.

        What gays? Where? Proof?

        The rest of your nonsense doesn’t merit a reply. You’ve done more damage then I can ever do to your reputation.

      • SoBeRight

        “Gays are also militating to be allowed to donate blood again.”

        Uhm, I’ll call BS on that one.

        What gays? Where? Proof?

        The rest of your nonsense doesn’t merit a reply. You’ve done more damage then I can ever do to your reputation.

        • jim_m

           I’ve worked in the blood industry for 23 years.  I think I know what is going on in my own business,  It has been coming up every year for quite some time now.  The FDA keeps saying No, and the industry keeps resisting changing the regulations, but the gay activists keep on pushing.  They claim that it is discrimination, but the reality is that there are real risks.

          • SoBeRight

            Let me say it again.

            What gays?

            Where?

            Where is your proof this is happening?

            Show us… if they are “militating” it’ll be easy to show us examples of that.

            You can’t come up with any – can you?

            It was BS folks.

          • jim_m

             18 dem senators signed a letter to the FDA in 06 demanding a change in the rule.  The Gay Mens Health Crisis has claimed that the rule s discriminatory and unfair.

            The FDA has refused to change and I think this quote from the World Federation of Hemophilia says it well:

            When it comes to pathogens transmitted in the blood supply, “100 percent
            of the risk is borne by the recipient” and none is borne by the donor,
            said Mark Skinner, president of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

            Blood-donor rules are discriminatory by design, Mr. Skinner said. But
            the rules are grounded in science and intended to protect the end users,
            not target a group, he said, noting that hemophiliacs like himself can
            never give blood. “It really isn’t even a gay issue because lesbians are
            not excluded unless they fall into other risk categories,” Mr. Skinner
            said.

            I won’t hold my breath for your apology for calling me a liar.  Jackass.

          • Jwb10001

            Final warning there Jimbo you’re about to be put on the fish face’s banning list!

          • jim_m

             I’ll have to be careful then won’t I.

            But not as careful as I would have o be if the gay lobby got its way

            Dr. Andrew I. Dayton told an FDA workshop in March 2006.
            His computer models found that if MSM were deferred for five years,
            about 1,430 HIV-infected units would enter the blood supply in the first
            year of the new policy; with a one-year deferral, the number of
            infected units would “about double,” to 2,780, Dr. Dayton said.

            …Still, gay rights groups have long been fighting to change blood-donor rules

            The risk is all ours, but the left wing doesn’t care about the rights of others. 

          • SoBeRight

            Nice try, here’s the part Jim left out.

            The push to eliminate the lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and
            bisexual men received a boost yesterday, when 18 senators signaled their
            support for such a change.

            “[H]ealthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated
            policy,” Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in a letter to
            Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

            “We live in a very different country than we did in 1983,” when gay and
            bisexual men were permanently “deferred” from giving blood, due to the
            HIV/AIDS crisis, the letter said.

            Now that more is known about HIV transmission and dramatic technological
            advances have been made to detect HIV in blood, “we agree with the
            American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others
            that the
            time has come for the FDA to modify” its donor rules, said senators,
            including 17 Democrats and Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent.

            They asked the FDA to consider using the same deferral policies with men
            who have sex with men (MSM) that apply to heterosexuals who engage in
            high-risk behavior – usually a 12-month deferral

            This would mean that a
            gay or bisexual man could donate blood if he had not had sex with a man
            in the past 12 months.

            The senators’ letter to the FDA comes a week after the Gay Men’s Health
            Crisis (GMHC) released a report on why the lifetime ban on MSM blood
            donations is punitive, unfair and unnecessary.

            “We don’t want to increase the risk to the nation’s blood supply,” said
            Joseph Wardenski, lead author of the GMHC report and a former associate
            at Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm.

            “We would like to reduce discrimination, and we would like a blood-donor
            pool that’s large enough to ensure that there’s a safe and sufficient
            blood supply, particularly in times of emergency,”
            he said.

            U.S. blood bank organizations have been amenable to change since 2006.
            The AABB, America’s Blood Centers and American Red Cross
            support a
            one-year deferral for MSM because that would be “consistent with the
            deferral period for other potentially high-risk sexual exposures…

            Militants? like US Senators, the Red Cross, etc.

            Now wonder you lied, you failed again.

          • jim_m

            You are a fool if you think that this is not driven by the gay lobby.  That article says so.

            Also if you knew anything about the industry you would know that the ARC has been under a consent decree from the FDA for over a decade. Any easing of restrictions makes it easier for them to avoid the millions of dollars in fines they get each year for failing to adhere to standards like this one. 

            Like I said.  I have worked in this business since 1988. I know what I’m talking about.

          • SoBeRight

            You just can’t back up your BS with any facts or proof, and when you try you’re proven to be full of BS as usual.

            The Red Cross is not
            “militant”…

            And didn’t you claim to work in the mortgage industry last week?

          • jim_m

             No.  I have never worked in any other industry and have never claimed to.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Or the health and well being of others.  Both are far less important to some than mandated “acceptance.”

          • SoBeRight

            No apology needed. You’ve failed again.

            After googling all afternoon desparately trying to find a shred of evidence to back up your claims, you’ve failed again. No sign of “Gays are also militating to be allowed to donate blood again.”

            I love it when you come back and prove I”m right, but isn’t it a tad embarassing to make these false claims then come back afail repeatedly in your attempts to backup your claims?

            Frankly I’m embarrassed for you. I feel like it’s unfair to challenge you because you always prove yourself to be full of BS.

          • jim_m

             I spent all of two minutes looking for that article.

            What about “…Still, gay rights groups have long been fighting to change blood-donor rules” says that gay rights groups have not been militating for this? 

            You are an immature ass.  I proved my point and I backed it up with an article from the Washington Times.  You have not shown me anything to support the notion that gays don’t want this.  I have an article showing that they have been working n this issue world wide.

          • jim_m

             So are you going to ban me now?  I’m shaking in my boots from fear of your authority.

          • SoBeRight

            The Washington Times isn’t a newspaper, its a right wing propaganda machine.

            Wow. You are totally uninformed…

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Holding your breath waiting on civility from our latest troll would indeed seem to be contra-indicated.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

           Sounds like an admission of defeat, Chomsky.

          • SoBeRight

             DFTT.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Go away, spiteful troll.

      • The_Queen_of_France

         I’ve heard this, too, through my daughter who’s involved in medical research.  Makes no sense to demand to be allowed to donate blood unless it’s not to be used in humans.  Yet if that restriction was placed on donations from gays, they’d scream discrimination again. 

        I’ve had many blood transfusions and I just don’t need the added stress of wondering if this pint or that pint was part of a donation made by a person more likely to be infected with HIV who wanted to make a point.  In effect, if you’re gay, that’s your business, but your right to donate blood ends where my vein begins.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    I must beg to differ.

    I see no problem whatsoever with declining to do business with someone over their stated political views.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

       Agreed.  It is none of the government’s business.  Those who discriminate will lose the business not only of those they refuse to serve, but also of those who object to the policy.  The market is self-policing.

      • jim_m

         The market cannot be allowed to self police.  What if the people decided that they wanted something that their leftist overseers didn’t like?  What if they wanted salt or transfats or (horrors) high fructose corn syrup?  What if they didn’t include a vegetable in every lunch they packed for their children?

        The people cannot be allowed to run their own lives. 

  • MunDane68

    Hey the right to refuse service to anyone is a rather enshrined right in out business lore.  I got no problem with that.  Just like I have no problem with a photographer saying she wont photograph a gay wedding..
    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2409152/posts

    or bake a cake for one…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/iowa-wedding-cake-lesbian-couple_n_1092789.html

    or hold a wedding on your property
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn-sued-refusal-host-gay-couples-wedding/story?id=14110076#.T0WkavWR6bM

    And so ZGoFish must be too, since he is such an upstanding person for liberty

    • SoBeRight

      I got no problem with freedom of speech and exercising one’s right to call an asshole an asshole.

      Talk to the writer of this post, who for some odd reason does object to liberties…

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        If you have to go to insults early, you’re in the wrong place.

      • MunDane68

         So, you think those lawsuit by the homosexuals against the heterosexuals are just anti-breeder bigotry then?

      • Sky__Captain

        “I got no problem with freedom of speech and exercising one’s right to call an asshole an asshole.”

        .. and yet I seem to recall seeing you threatening to ban someone. You know, “first and last warnng” stuff.

        I guess your views on freedom of speech are subject to change, eh?

    • SoBeRight

      I got no problem with freedom of speech and exercising one’s right to call an asshole an asshole.

      Talk to the writer of this post, who for some odd reason does object to liberties…

    • Jwb10001

      Be careful of ZGfish will have you banned, first and last warning…. lol

  • MunDane68

    Hey the right to refuse service to anyone is a rather enshrined right in out business lore.  I got no problem with that.  Just like I have no problem with a photographer saying she wont photograph a gay wedding..
    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2409152/posts

    or bake a cake for one…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/iowa-wedding-cake-lesbian-couple_n_1092789.html

    or hold a wedding on your property
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn-sued-refusal-host-gay-couples-wedding/story?id=14110076#.T0WkavWR6bM

    And so ZGoFish must be too, since he is such an upstanding person for liberty

  • MunDane68

    Or is he just an asshole bigot against breeders…

  • MunDane68

    Or is he just an asshole bigot against breeders…

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    So, Antonio Darden chose who he would provide a service to.
    And the problem with that is . . . ?

    • SoBeRight

      He’s gay, so it’s a problem for the homephobes and haters.

      But be careful, if you defend a gay person’s rights “Retired Military” will decide you are gay… 

      • jim_m

         I have no problem with saying that I don’t want your business because I disagree with your views.  But if it were reversed and the issue was that I don’t want your business because you support gay marriage, I would be attacked for discriminating not because I disagree with the viewpoint, but because I am discriminating against gays period. 

        Your own statements testify to the fact that you feel that any position against gay marriage must stem from some sort of homophobia.  That’s simply false.  I have no problems working alongside gays and have done so many times.  But that does not mean that I agree with them on gay marriage or approve of their lifestyle.  They are just people and they happen to be wrong on those issues. 

        Frankly I think it is your kind who are the bigots, who cannot be bothered to see someone else’s point of view and who are so convinced of their own righteousness that they will not take the time to try to understand someone else.  And you do it all in the name of tolerance.  What BS.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

         He decided you are gay?  I thought you said it was genetic . . .

    • herddog505

      The “problem” is the hypocrisy of the left.  They’ve recently insisted that:

      — Susan G. Komen MUST continue funding PP;

      — The Catholic Church MUST pay for birth control and abortion drugs.

      You MUST serve them.  They haven’t got to serve you.

  • herddog505

    Apparently, some forms of discrimination are perfectly fine for the left.

    Surprise, surprise…

    • Commander_Chico

      It’s not just “the left,” it’s chicks who discriminate against me because I’m too ugly, for example.  Or bartenders who won’t serve me because I’m a Drunkard-American.  Or when I discriminate against McDonald’s because their food gives me nausea. 

      Plenty of forms of discrimination are lawful.  The kinds of discrimination which are unlawful are defined by law.  The other kinds of discrimination are OK.  Is that hard to understand?

      You were denouncing Brown v. Board of Education the other day.  That is a case about the government preventing a little black girl from attending the public school in her neighborhood because the rules of the Topeka schools required racial segregation.  Now since you criticized Brown I presume you’re OK with that, but some gay hairdresser turning down an appointment from someone whose political views he does not like is wrong?

      • Jwb10001

        Chicks can discriminate against you the government can’t there’s a difference.

      • herddog505

        The gay hairdresser is (or ought to be) perfectly at liberty to serve customers or not as he sees fit, for any reason at all.  Now, I’m pretty sure that lefties don’t see it that way.  Would I be wrong to suggest that, if the situation was reversed (straight hairdresser refuses to serve a gay customer), the left would be screaming for blood?

        My problem is the hypocrisy:

        “Refusing to let a little girl attend her local school because of her color is outrageous, and the federal government forcing the schools to let her is is a Good Thing(TM), but refusing to let a woman get her hair done because of her personal beliefs is good and fine and noble and serves that homophobic reichwing b*tch right.”

        Again, the left seems perfectly fine with SOME forms of bigotry.

        • Commander_Chico

          C’mon, I’m losing faith in you.  If you didn’t know the facts of Brown when you said it was a bad decision, say so and admit your mistake. 

          The Browns paid taxes to the USA, Kansas and Topeka.  It was the government discriminating against their daughter.  They had a right to equal treatment from the State of Kansas.  That’s in the plain text of the 14th Amendment.  If you disagree with the 14th Amendment, say so, because Brown is about the clearest 14th Amendment case there is.

          On the other hand, Susan Martinez wasn’t paying taxes to the gay hairdresser.  Au contraire.

          • herddog505

            As I wrote on the Brown thread, there are parents of my acquaintance who cannot send their children to the local school.  Are their rights being violated?

            At any rate, I’m not going to rehash this.  I have stated my reasons why I think Brown was a bad decision that has born bad fruit.  You have stated your reasons why you think it was wonderful.  We disagree.  C’es la vie.

            My point in this case stands: the left is pretty selective in its outrage over discrimination.  In short, some is wicked and evil, while others is good and decent and moral.

          • Commander_Chico

            Without knowing why they can’t send their kids to the local school, it’s impossible to answer the question.

            The reasons you stated you don’t like Brown didn’t have anything to do with the facts or law of Brown.   I got the impression you didn’t know the facts of the case and were unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment.

            You said Brown created “new rights” – the fact is that according to the plain text of the 14th Amendment, it merely enforced rights which had been routinely violated by states after Reconstruction and during the Jim Crow period.

            The only way you can be against Brown is to adopt the reasoning of Plessy v. Ferguson – “separate but equal.” Of course public facilities were a lot more separate than equal after that.

            Professor Kingsfield gives you an F.

          • herddog505

            Commander_ChicoWithout knowing why they can’t send their kids to the local school, it’s impossible to answer the question.

            Um, no.  Brown rests in part upon the idea that it’s a violation of somebody’s rights to refuse to allow him to go to his local school.  If there’s a “right” for a child to attend his local school, then refusing to allow him to do so is a violation of that right.  The reason for refusal really doesn’t matter.

          • Commander_Chico

            Wrong –

            First, Brown does not establish a “right” to go to the closest school.  It merely says that the state cannot discriminate in assignments to the local school based on race.  As long as the reasons aren’t denying “equal protection of the laws” to citizens, it’s OK.  There are plenty of reasons, like overcrowding, which are not discriminatory.

  • herddog505

    Say… since bigots should be roundly and vociferously criticized and attacked whenever and wherever they appear, does that mean that the anti-Catholic, anti-Israeli, or anti-Christian bigots who routinely comment on this blog should be banned?

    By the way, who gets to define whether somebody is a “bigot” in the first place?  Or is this yet another case where a word doesn’t quite mean what lefties think that it does?

    • Brian_The_Adequate

       Silly herddog – words don’t have fixed meanings, they mean whatever the lefty decides that they mean.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      …. 
      who gets to define …. a bigot ….

      Merriam-Webster? 

      As to whether anyone is or not?

      Remember the duck?

      Walks like, quacks like — that kind of thing?

      • herddog505

        As it happens, Merriam-Webster defines bigot in part thus:

        one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

        Now, this speaks to motive: if one opposes gay marriage because he thinks that it’s simple a bad policy (damages the family, bad for children, etc.) but doesn’t especially dislike homosexuals, is he a “bigot”?  I think that the left would say “yes”.

        So, again: who gets to define a bigot?

        • jim_m

          I believe that the left defines bigot as anyone who disagrees with them for any reason on any issue relating to race, religion or sexuality. 

          And they define their own hatred for Christians and Jews, not as bigotry but as morally justified.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    I really want my haircutter to be an envy-fueled, hatred-engined, rage-driven self-loathing sexually-deranged bigot.

    And my surgeon, too, come to that. 

    Not. 

  • ODA315

    I have a RIGHT to stick my penis in another man’s rectum.

    It’s in the constitution. Professor Obama, the constitutional scholar said so!

  • Johnathan Pu-blix

     Governor Martinez has also removed safe sex materials targeted for gays for offices. There was a pamphlet that was in the middle of the issue that has
    caused NM Department of Health to pull all public health educational
    materials.

    http://www.nmdohcrisis.com/2012/02/nm-department-of-healths-cabinet.html

    Have a look. We have the pamphlet in PDF format. There is a much deeper
    story here than the pamphlet! We are NM Department of Health Employees.

    • jim_m

      I don’t think that it is appropriate to be having sex in the office to begin with, gay or straight.  First of all, unless you are a prostitute you are really wasting company time and secondly, unless you are high enough up the corporate chain you don’t have a couch and it’s going to be really uncomfortable.

      • SoBeRight

         Was that supposed to be funny?