A gay stylist in Santa Fe refused to cut New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez's hair due to her stance on same-sex marriage. KOB-TV's Stuart Dyson reports.
A New Mexico hairdresser just lost a big client.
Antonio Darden, owner of a Santa Fe area salon, has refused service to Republican Governor Susana Martinez because of her stance on gay marriage. Darden, who is openly gay, has styled Martinez’s hair a few times before but now he says he’s done.
"If I'm not good enough to be married, I'm not going to cut her hair," Darden told the New Mexican in an interview. Darden has been with his partner for 15 years.
The governor’s office has since tried several times to schedule an appointment but Darden has not only refused he’s going to spread the word. In a phone message left at the governor’s office he said, "I am going to let all gay people know, 'Stop serving you.' 'Stop providing you with what you need.” He added, "I don't agree with her views on this. It's not about a man and a woman. It's about equality and it's about dignity."
The governor’s office later put out a statement saying while they don’t support gay marriage they do, "believe that all people should be judged on their merits and not discriminated against.”
What do you think? Is Darden using a useful tactic? What if every minority refused service to politicians who spoke against their best interest? Groups like women, immigrants or gays? What do you think that would look like?
Leave a Comment:
I personally believe a business owner should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason. It is a shame that freedom doesn't exist in the United States. What would happen if a gay was denied services because the business owner didn't condone the gay lifestyle? Or a Black business owner that refused service to whites? We should be free to make these business decision, but government intrusion prohibits it.
I live in New Mexico and have to put up with this bigot of a Governor everyday of my life. Her election was bought by republican oil men from Texas. They wanted her Hispanic name and her republican attitude. She has not been a favorite. She is not for the many Hispanic people who live here despite her last name. She is just like Walker and the rest of the republican governors.
Santa Fe where she lives is the home of many "Gay" individuals and I will be surprised if there are not others who will refuse her service. Goddy!
Thankful, Do you believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to any one they want? Should a white business owner be free to refuse service to blacks? Should a Christian business owner be able to refuse services to a Muslim? Federal intervention prohibits the practice in many cases. Why is it OK to discriminate in one case and not another?
Thankful, Why is this nation being inundated with these kinds of Governors? It seems to be in epidemic ! We have a stand off. She refuses to listen to her constituents and I understand there stance as well. Its so sad that we as a nation can not come together.
PAM~ They are here because of the Tea Party and ALEC, which as we know are both backed and funded by the Kochs. It's all part of their Big Plan. Have you gone to ALECexposed.org yet? Very enlightening...and frightening.
2ez, do you think the military has the right not to accept gays?
2ez4u2c2 That is the most idiotic comparison I've ever seen. If you want to compare ONE incident to the widespread bigotry of the south towards blacks (hundreds of years worth... thus the civil rights movement and Rights Acts) then you are either young or narrow minded! He could have just said "sorry we are closed", but being as he is an American citizen and she is an Elected Official, I would say he's well within his rights as a shop owner and a citizen. Again what minority does SHE belong to that yoiur talking about? The bought and paid for minority? I really want to see their history of being discriminated against!!!
Dead, I personally believe the practice of discrimination is part of human nature and the government's attempts to stop it are futile. We as individual discriminate every day and we will continue to do so regardless of government intrusion. We discriminate in our decisions to purchase a product, who we date, who we associate with, our leisure activities, what we eat, etc... How many fat men or women have you dated? How about ugly people? When is the last time you had a homeless person over for diner? And why is it Blacks and slaves always come up in the conversation? Why not the Irish or Italians? Were they not discriminated against? Why are American Indians not persecuted for their practice of slavery or for that matter Black slave owners? Liberals tend to pick what forms of discrimination are good and which are bad. It is OK to discriminate against a white college applicant but not a black one. It OK to discriminate against a white applicant for a job but not a Hispanic. It is OK to discriminate against a Christian but not a Muslim. Gave me a break, either discrimination is good or it is bad. The reasons, amount of occurrences, or the length of time are irrelevant. I think is it simply human nature.
John, the military does what it is told by the government, as it should be. As for my personal opinion on service in the military, I think every one should have to serve and there should be no exception for women. Why were women exempt from the draft or combat roles: Discrimination based on sex.
I remember a time when "Whites Only" was acceptable. I do not want to return to those days!
He is making a point about a fact that infringes on his life. He did not denie her services because of her religion or her heritage. She made her feeling public, he has the right to be offended. Would you want someone to cut her hair who did not like you?
I have made choices not to patranize people who offend me.
Thankful, He would indeed be discriminating against her for religious reasons if it is her religious beliefs that causes her to oppose same sex marriage. As a customer, I believe, at least for the time being, you are free to decided to patranize. Now we government mandated health care you probably will not have that right in the future. As for businesses denying service to individuals because of their religious beliefs, I believe its wrong, but they should have the right to do so.
Boy, is that a stretch. "Excuse me, Ma'am. Are you against equal rights for gays because of your religious convictions, or is it just because you're an intolerant bigot? If it's because of your religion, how could I possibly object?"
2ez,
as for businesses denying service to individuals because of their religious beliefs...but they should have the right to do so
even though you believe it is wrong, then where does one draw the line? we know that excuse of "my religious beliefs prohibit..." would be used for everything.
as for the "health care mandate", the republicans were for it before they flip-flopped. they were for it as late as 2009 before President Obama put it on the table. IT IS A REPUBLICAN IDEA, as far back as daddy bush's presidency. mark pauly(?) budget director for daddy bush's administration is slackjawed at how the repubs are bashing and denying their OWN PLAN for health care reform.
the individual mandate goes as far back as nixon. they used the individual mandate to counter teddy kennedy's health care, and they used it again to counter the clinton plan.
i wonder what your response would be if a repub had put it on the table. the individual mandate took care of free riders, and the insurance companies made money.
an ideal plan for the republican party. President Obama put it on the table to try to get repub votes on health care reform.
Suzette, I would not support the government mandate regardless who which party promoted it. I don't believe it is the government's place to force citizens to purchase products or services. Recent California mandated that homes have carbonmonixide detectors. My city mandates we purchase trash pick up services regardless of our need. We have to wear seat belts and motocycle helmets, yet another government mandated purchase. When will it stop? If the government can force us to buy any product or service they can force us to buy what ever they want.
Perhaps, if everyone that she offends refuses service to her, she'll finally start to realize how many people she is actually offending...
Part of the reason Republicans pursue such an ugly agenda, is that they don't realize how many people in their daily lives are affected by their policies... As long as one thinks of a group as an abstract 'someone I don't know', it's a lot easier to demonize them... Once you can put a face to 'them', it's a lot harder to ignore them...
Amen.
Double Amen that !
This tactic worked so well that India managed to gain independence from the UK without resorting to violence.
It's about time for a Republican boycott.
You are right David, let's make the Repubs lives as miserable as they are trying to make ours!
If this was a barber who refused to cut a gay man's hair, you would not be giving him such praise. You liberals are a bunch of hypocrites!
The fact that she is a hypocrite does not matter to you? His comment is that she can not see how she has affected his life with her hypocrisy. No shoes, no shirt, no service. A person who gives you service should have first your respect for that person. She gave him none.
Wrong, Jason. Anti-discrimination law prohibits discriminating against members of a "protected class." You know, by race, color, religion, national origin, etc. Gays in some instances are now members of a protected class as well. He is not refusing service by reason of her membership in any of these classes - not because she is a woman, or has a Spanish surname like many, many NM'ers. No, he is refusing service because he doesn't like her views. The list of organizations targeted for boycotts by many groups, including Christian ones, is quite long. Such boycotts are legal, and hard to object to even if you disagree with the reasoning behind them. And so is his "reverse" boycott.
Where's the hypocrisy, again?
Well said, George....thank you!
George, What is the difference between discrimination based on a person's religion and discrimination based on a person's opinion based on religion? The business owner in this case is clearly a bigot and intolerant of those with opposing views. I wonder if he would deny services to the majority of Californians that voted against a like proposition?
I also wonder if you believe a Doctor, Medical Office or Hospital should have the ability to deny services to Gays because the business owner doesn't believe in the lifestyle?
Good question. First, I would refer you to my response #3.2 above.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service." I'm allowed to do that. I'm allowed not to serve Republicans. I'm allowed not to rent to lawyers. None of these people is a member of a rigorously defined "protected class."
So I would submit that being "intolerant of those with opposing views" doesn't make you a bigot. To reiterate, Christians boycott those with opposing views all the time. (See "War on Christmas.") That's their right. Being intolerant of Jews, or Blacks etc... just because of who they are, that makes you a bigot, and in many instances is against the law.
You don't get a free pass from me because your opinion is based on religion. That's especially true if you're a public official because as we all agree - don't we? - "Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state." That's JFK, BTW.
So expanding on JFK, here again I would argue that the Constitution guarantees equal rights to all, including gays. (I am well aware this has yet to be adjudicated and the inevitable progression to the SCOTUS will be fascinating to watch and perhaps frightening to watch, considering the make-up of this Court, as well.)
And implicit in your question is the idea that it's OK to discriminate because of your religious belief. But if you're discriminating because of somebody's race or sexual preference or whatever, I find that offensive and I believe most people do - yes, even if it's because of your so-called religious beliefs. More specifically in this case, if your view as a public official is that it's OK to discriminate against a protected class because of your religious beliefs, my opinion is that you're unfit to hold office.
Evangelical Christians claim not to hate homosexuals, just the homosexual act. So if you're a celibate homosexual, that's OK? Really? It seems a somewhat cynical distinction without a difference.
As far as doctors, etc. go, I believe the Hippocratic Oath already requires them to treat everyone. Beyond that, if you accept Govt funds - and most hospitals do - you have to follow Fed law. Even so, by law, doctors who object are exempt from performing abortions, and pharmacists who object are exempt from dispensing morning-after pills.
Finally, when Calif Prop 8 passed, it "came out" (heh, heh) that a manager of a very popular Mexican restaurant, El Coyote, had contributed to the pro-Prop 8 campaign. Gays organized a successful boycott that by some estimates cut restaurant revenues by 30%. That's their right, too.
Sometimes I hesitate to post because I fear getting drawn into exhausting discussions. This is one of those times. Cheers.
YOu did good.
Sort of like the JC Penny and Ellen thing. The 1million moms, were going to boycott if they didn't get rid of Ellen....... they said no, Go ahead and take your business else where.
George, There are some in the Federal Government proposing an additional Medicare Copay for smokers because of the associated health risks and subsequent costs to the program. I see that as discriminatory. I imagine you would support that discrimination, am I correct? If the government proposed Homosexuals pay a higher Medicare Copay because of their increased risk of HIV/AIDS and the associated cost what you consider that discrimination?
"Some" in the Fed Govt? Who? Let me sleep on it. Meanwhile, how do you feel about motorcyclist helmet laws? BTW, is there anything else you would like to comment on or even challenge about my lengthy response to you?
Plus, let me gently say, please do not try to redefine discrimination or assume what my views are on what you might think qualifies to be called that.
George, I do not recall his name but the proposal was made by a Republican, his father, a long time smoker died from lung cancer.
Only response to your lengthy comment is I do not agree. In this case I believe it is discrimination base on religion.
As far as either my or for that matter your ability to redefine discrimination, we lost that freedom to the Federal Government some time ago. Prior to 1964 we were indeed free to hire or not hire who we wanted, to service who we wanted, to rent to who we wanted, etc... We are no longer free to do so. Like I said neither you nor I are free to define discrimination; our all knowing enlightened government has done it for us.
I would really like to know what you think about my question and look forward to your response. Have a good evening.
George, If you would care to consider and comment on these areas of discrimination.
It occurred to me that while the Federal Government prohibits the citizen from discrimination, the government itself is free to continue the practice.
1. The Military draft compelling male citizens to become solders excludes females. Is this government policy not in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it discriminates based on gender?
2. Various Federal affirmative action policies, specifically those associated with college admissions place greater emphasis on minority applicants than White applicants. Is this not also in violation of the Act as it discriminates based on race?
3. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) most of which receive Federal funding limit the number of seats available to Whites. Less than 20% of the student population for the majority of HBCUs are White. Is the Federal government not violating the Civil Rights Act when endorsing discrimination based on race at the HBCUs?
4. The Federal Government, specifically the Department of the Navy, engages in recruiting activity to fill specialised civilian positions such as engineers with minorities. Many positions in Southern California are filled with Hispanics as a result of recruiting efforts at Colleges and Universities in Texas and New Mexico. Isn't the Federal Government's violating the Act when employment quotas based on race are implemented and maintained?
5. Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have age restrictions. In most cases, there are a few exceptions, an applicant for the FBI, US Marshall, ATF, ICE, and the Federal Prison System must not have achieved their 37th birthday at the time of application. These agencies also have a mandatory retirement at age 57. Is it not age discrimination to deny a 40 year old person a job based exclusively on the age?
6. Is prohibiting female solders from combat roles not a violation of the Civil Rights Act?
I was busy yesterday and have yet to formulate a response to your previous post. Meanwhile, you may be surprised that I agree with all of your examples of Fed discrimination above, with the possible exception of #5. Yet I do think this one is probably outmoded, too. All these agencies have specific and rigorous training requirements. To invest in this training and not get maximum benefit from it is a policy many fiscal conservatives would probably oppose, and justifiably so.
Meanwhile, "50 is the new 40." I believe commercial airline pilots are still forced into retirement at age 60, and I believe this is a mistake, too.
fox news uses the expression, especially fox and friends, "there are 'some' who say", and then go on to express their own feelings about a "democratic" issue.
if cigarette smokers could find a way to inhale without exhaling all those chemicals, without BLOWING IT IN EVERYONE'S FACE, or if they just smoked in their own homes or cars (without children), which they are free to do, especially if they own their home, no-one cares.
my experience has been with smokers, up until recently anyway, they are very disrespectful in their need to feed their habit. it is getting better because LAWS have been passed that prevent people from lighting up wherever they want. when i was married, years ago, my then-husband could light up wherever he wanted. grocery stores, dept. stores, in the basement of the CHURCH, wherever.
the one thing about smoking is this: WHEN YOU SMOKE IN MY SPACE, I SMOKE, TOO. the health risks to non-smokers who LIVE with smokers is high. they get emphysema, cancer, asthma. people who are allergic to it, like myself, have debilitating migraines. the affects of cigarette smoking is well known, and risks are wide spread, causing death most of the time.
not all homosexual men are frivilous with sex. a commited gay couple, with neither one having aids, HAS NO RISK. also, it is very difficult for two women to pass the aids virus, and in heterosexual sex, where the man is bisexual, and the woman doesn't know, is how many women end up with aids. as a general rule, it is possible, but very difficult for a woman to give aids to a man.
not that there is anything wrong with being homosexual, but the very act of anal sex, with tissue in that area ripping easily, fluids are exchanged, and that is how the virus is passed most of the time. some homosexual men do not engage in anal sex, they just do the oral thing. i don't know the percentages on that.
IF they can find a way to corner homosexual men who have anal sex, they could charge them more for insurance. of course they would have to include bisexual men in that, too, husbands who "cheat" with gay men, and bring the virus home to their wives, especially those who have anal sex with their wives. repeatedly exposing the virus through vaginal sex is also a high risk.
cigarette smoking is easier to "isolate", to "determine", and the affects are more widespread, not that aids hasn't taken a horrifically unbelievable toll on the world. but now, it isn't necessarily a death sentence, it is a disease to be managed.
Again, what minority does she belong to that make his actions wrong? Your trying to compare nuts to bolts. Gays HAVE been discriminated against!! Show me where any elected official (whom is supposed to act in accordance with constituents needs and demands and the best for their state or country... progress being one of them!) has EVER been discriminated against ..... just try to name one!
Suzette, Both smoking and homosexual activity are voluntary and both place a significant burdens on the medical system as do other voluntary activities such as BASE jumping, skydiving, snow boarding, skiing, etc... Is there really a difference between one higher risk category and another. How is it fair and reasonable to punish one group with higher copays and not the others? How about the obese? Should they pay more? Should manufacturing Companies and their workers pay more because they pollute more or people that drive cars with internal combustion engines pay more than the guy that rides a bicycle? When the government is in a position to make these decisions we have lost all freedom as individual citizens.
George, On #5. The same Federal Government that discriminates against age in their law enforcement agencies prohibits state and local government from doing the same.
He should have cut her hair and made a loud statement. A picture is worth a thousand words.
I think he made a loud statemen.
This is what happens when 'Republican' politicians serve up the 'Repugnant' politics of division.
"Good Form" Antonio.
I wonder if the governor "gets it"...???
With the CDC reporting 61% of all new HIV/AIDS cases involve men that have sex with men and 49% of people with existing HIV/AIDS infection being men that have sex with men, I have to wonder why any one would go to a Homosexual hair stylist in the first place.
I wonder how many times you have came in contact with an HIV positive person and didn't know it.
It would be nice if they wore signs.
2ez2 you definitely have a gay hangup don't you. It is quite obvious! I'll bet you sport the stars and bars flag still too!! Crawl back into your cave pls. Maybe you should still be wearing your dunce cap from grade school, ....oh yeah that was in the early 1900's , right where you're mentality is stuck!!
Republican deadhead from Utah with 4 children and a wide open mind
Come on David. Do you really think I care one way or the other? My comment was a joke, you remember what a joke is. As a matter of fact I support Gay Marriage, but I do not support the government's involvement in marriage. I see no useful or required purpose for the government to be involved. If people want to be gay who am I to say no. On the other hand who are you to say I am not free to believe Gays are sexual deviates.
I think what the stylist did is not only appropriate but to be commended. If it's okay for religious organizations and private clubs to pick and choose who they will and will not allow in based on their beliefs then the same rules should apply to everyone. I wouldn't serve this governor either if I were gay.
Gaithers, If a group of supporters of the Govern protested the stylist with a public boycott would you support their right to do so? Would you consider people engaged in such a boycott as Bigots?