probably shouldnt be trusting your hair to people you're fighting against. ;)

This is PRICELESS. These politicians need to recognize that the people they are fighting so hard against are actually JUST REAL PEOPLE. This Governor should make a personal note about KARMA.

nobody's forcing you to click on the link, buddy

Some people are interested in these stories. If you don't care, simply don't click on them.

You care obviously.

Why do you have to comment on every article about gay people? Is something forcing you to click each and every article pertaining to gay people and then comment on it? This article was written just for you because there is a high audience of people like you who consume news like this. Might I suggest a subscription to the Advocate.

Oh no, guess the governor will have to *gasp* go to a different stylist now...

How is this even news?

I hope all gays (and those of us who agree) would stand up to all the politicians.

"Oh sorry. I can't wait on your table. I'm gay." etc

"Sorry I can't sell that widget to you. I'm gay and clearly not worthy."

That would be fantastic. I hope this story spreads and others do the same. :)

Oh and for everyone saying "who cares?", a lot of us do. On a side note, I've never seen a straight male stylist in my area, so all the anti marriage people who use their services are full of it.

So no one has a problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill birth control prescriptions right? It's his/her own business after all.

Impatient girl -- is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the shoe being on the other foot? As in "sorry, I won't serve you because you're gay"? Or black? Seems to me a lot of people marched and protested this exact kind of behavior some years back. But you're saying it's ok depending on what side of the issue you fall?

chester, so a governor discriminates against a man legislatively and sets him as a second class citizen, and a man denies her a hair cut, therefore the fair response would be for all heterosexuals to boycott his place? That's how it works huh?

I guess if a man attacks you and you deny that person service at your store, then all men should boycott your store.

Why stop at heterosexuals? Hell, why not all life forms? The governor is corporeal, the governor isn't getting a hair cut, therefore no corporeal being should patronize that store. Fair is fair.

hungrymongoose

Why do they have to report every little thing about gays. Who cares. Why does it need to be reported? ---- And always trying to be shoved down our throats?

Maybe you are looking at this in the wrong way. Are they reporting "every little thing about gays" or are they reporting about government officials who deny rights to their constituents?

gosnoric asks whether this is even news. I thought about it. It is NOT ! not not not.

It is part of a concerted effort to discredit the Republicans and we all have been duped ! This guy did her hair three times - come on, people !

SLINGER958418........Thats not Karma....that is your right to have whatever you believe in. Karma does not come back to bite you for an opinion, its your actions and bad deeds that will get you.

No, Chester12.

I'm hetero and I support gay marriage.

I'd be proud to have Mr. Darden cut my hair.

Mr. Spock, yes if the pharmacist is the business owner then he can refuse to carry any medicine that he wants to. Some pharmacists do not carry any Oxycontin because of the threat of being robbed. Now if he is a employee of a corporation say like Walgreens and they carry the pill or even plan B then he should have to dispense it, quit, or if the company wants,to be fired for refusing to do his job. Just like they should be able to fire you for refusing to work on Sunday if your job requires it. So now since the Church of Fundemental Later Days Saints (FLDS) religious teachings so that in order to get into heaven a man MUST marry multiple women are you ok with plural marriage? Islam allows a man to marry multiple women so can they?

Oh my goodness. If I was the Governor I would go to one of the 10 salons who is offering the service to her. She'll probably get a better haircut anyway.

Jo Ann, indeed a better haircut. Obviously gay people can't do anything right. Are you with me?

outinthewoods

It is part of a concerted effort to discredit the Republicans and we all have been duped ! This guy did her hair three times - come on, people !

So your argument is that if the hairdresser cuts the hair of a bigot three times he has an obligation to keep cutting her hair forever? This story discredits those public officials who would deny equal rights from citizens. If those officials are Republican, too bad. Aren't they ALWAYS Republican?

I think of would have cut her hair, but I would not stop telling her why she is wrong on marriage equality. I would have loaded up the shop with equality supporters and let her take the heat for not believing my relationship of 15yrs is worthy of a marriage, but Kim Kardashian's is.

Mr. Spock, I came on here to make the same point. Just yesterday the discussion on that issue was on MSNBC and the left clearly was in favor of making pharmacists fill prescriptions for the morining after pill because that was part of their job and they shouldn't be allowed to pick and chose based on their religious beliefs. Yet, when a gay openly discriminates against a straight person, its okay. They have the right to do that, they have the right as a private business owner to decide what products and services they sell and to whom they sell them to.

I wonder what people would be saying if it was a straight stylist telling a gay governor he would not cut her hair because she was gay. I guarantee the ACLU and any number of activists would be yelling, screaming, and filing a law suit for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hypocricsy never ends from the left.

Just like it's the right of someone who owns a pharmacy to decide what medications are stocked, it is also within this guy's right to not cut someone's hair because of his moral beliefs. It is also the right of the consumer to be or not to be a patron at any particular business.

It's not the right of the government to go beyond the constitution to legislate business services or customer's purchases unless it's a matter of direct public safety.

This article is news worthy, because it highlights the fact that what you do, or do not do, effects everyone, including BUSINESS OWNERS.

By the way, he has the right to refuse service to anyone who is unreasonable towards him, his employees, or other clients. The fact that she got her hair done there, and expects to continue getting her hair done there, after such an insult, just shows the public exactly how stupid she is.

hungry mongoose is what we call a "gay homophobe." Google it, click on video, and then enjoy.

STLMIke

Mr. Spock, I came on here to make the same point. Just yesterday the discussion on that issue was on MSNBC and the left clearly was in favor of making pharmacists fill prescriptions for the morining after pill because that was part of their job and they shouldn't be allowed to pick and chose based on their religious beliefs. Yet, when a gay openly discriminates against a straight person, its okay. They have the right to do that, they have the right as a private business owner to decide what products and services they sell and to whom they sell them to.

I wonder what people would be saying if it was a straight stylist telling a gay governor he would not cut her hair because she was gay. I guarantee the ACLU and any number of activists would be yelling, screaming, and filing a law suit for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hypocricsy never ends from the left.

STLMike

Maybe a more fundamental question is "Why is it fine for government to deny rights to a segment of the population based on backward thinking?" Here is another question to ponder, "Is it wrong to deny rights and services to bigots but reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals?"

@Spock -- Your response is easily answered. NO ONE should be denied anything based on someone else's "beliefs". If the pharmacist does not believe in birth control, they picked the wrong field to be in -- they're are required to fulfill prescriptions to all faiths. Just as the Govenor shouldn't deny marriage equality to LGBT's because their "belief" doesn't agree with it. I don't always agree with other religions, but I wouldn't dare deny a person't right to practice what they believe -- but there's a fundamental difference between beliefs and law.

I'm with the stylist.

The entire marriage is a "right" thing is really old. It's not a right, it is a sacrament of the church. The public contract that is a by-product of marriage IS a right and anyone should be able to enter into one. That said, with the boycotting hairdresser and now the judge who won't marry hetro couples I think the gay community needs to step back and figure out if they are not shooting their own foot off with those types of stances. Frankly, the public at large doesn't seem to really care if gays boycott them. The only real damage is done to those doing the boycotting. It's an issue that the larger public seems to be getting tired of constantly hearing about. Right or wrong, people only let you pound something at them for so long before the negative reaction happens.

Any private company may refuse service to anyone for any reason, so long as the reason is not that the person being refused service is in a "protected class." Refusing service on religious reasons IS a protected class.

Amused

Some churches have been refusing to marry same sex couples in states where marriage equality exists. That is their right. But as far as the government is concerned denial of marriage equality IS denying a "right", and those of us who believe that there should be marriage equality in every state will keep "pounding" until that happens. Face it, Amused, the opposition to marriage equality is aging out because the opposition is primarily from the over-55's while younger people favor rights for gay Americans.

Boycotting is a form of non-violent opposition that exposes those who refuse to treat citizens equally. You may not believe that will work ..... I think you are wrong.

as far as the government is concerned denial of marriage equality IS denying a "right"

No, it's not a "right" as long as it requires an authority-issued license. The government has the right to decide who is eligible for driving motor vehicles and who isn't, and issue driver license accordingly. Ditto gun license, liquor license, plumber license. Ditto marriage license. If I remember correctly, neither clergy nor judge nor anyone else will marry a couple without them producing a duly issued marriage license, regardless of orientation. So yes, the government, including elected officials, has the authority to define who can marry and who can't. An activity requiring a license is not a "right".

Amused In The Midwest:

The entire marriage is a "right" thing is really old. It's not a right, it is a sacrament of the church.

So, all the marriages that take place at court houses, marriage chapels or facilities, back yards, parks, seasides, lighthouses, and a thousand other places, are not real marriages? How about those performed by judges, marriage commissioners, magistrates, justices of the peace, and sea captians? No church involved there. Are those marriages a sacrament?

There are only 6 states allow same sex marriages. Only 11 states ever recognized domestic partners, and some of those have retracted even that.

But then, perhaps there are those who can not make or keep a vow given before witnesses unless it's authorized by some church.

It is his right to boycott the Governor if he so chooses, and you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to my opinion... The bible states that a man lying with a man, or a woman with a woman is a "detestable sin". I just happen to believe, as many millions of other christians believe, that each book of the bible was written by people that were inspired by God himself. Either you believe what the bible says, or you don't.

Randy Wagner,

If the reasoning to deny marriage equality to all is based on millions of christians, and what the Bible says, how do you get around having an admitted adulterer running for POTUS. There is nothing in the Big Ten about men laying with men, but there certainly is about adultry, and yet that seems to be getting a pass by millions of believers.

Cherry picking religious convictions is the ultimate slippery slope.

What the Bible does or does not say is irrelevant to the question of secular marriage. It doesn't affect you at all if the gay couple down the street gets a marriage license.

As easydoesit points out, if the Bible is your basis for determining who may or may not marry, let's be consistent. Why should adulterers be permitted to marry? What about people who dishonor their parents? Let's also ban shrimp eaters.

AnonymousUser - You are correct that the government has the power to regulate marriage - to some extent. Despite what they, and apparently you, would like to believe, the power of the government is not absolute. The legitimate power of the government in regulating marriage is to ensure that the parties to the marriage are entering into the contract freely and with their consent. This includes setting the age at which consent to marry can be given.

The government cannot however, substitute its judgment for that of the parties to the marriage. The government cannot therefore, say; "Sally, we don't think Mark is a good match for you so the two of you cannot get married."

The government also cannot act in a discriminatory manner in its application of the law. Secular marriage is a contract - nothing more, nothing less. If the government decides who can get married based on the gender of the parties to the contract then the government violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

If you believe that this business man has the right to deny service to the governor because of the governor's belief, then every business person should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. I believe that's fair, but wait, a business person can't deny service to anyone because there are laws that force you to serve people against your will. Would it be OK for a barber to deny service to a gay man because the man is gay? Would it be OK to deny service to this same person, not because he is gay, but because he believes in gay marriage?

And therein lies the rub for the gays. If they say it is ok for this guy to discriminate on these grounds, then it is ok for the guy running the service station next door to refuse to sell gas to gays. It's a slippery sloop once people start letting their frustration and anger turn into action. There will never be universal approval of gay marriage in this country. As much as the loudmouths would like you to believe they are winning this "right", they are not. They loose just about every time it gets put up for a public vote. It frustrates and angers them so now they react with the same things they protest against.

And therein lies the rub for the gays. If they say it is ok for this guy to discriminate on these grounds, then it is ok for the guy running the service station next door to refuse to sell gas to gays.

Actually, it isn't the same thing. Refusing service to the governor because he doesn't like her positions is different than discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, especially if the state has laws that cover such discrimination.

KUDOS to this man. Bigots like this woman shouldn't be allowed even be called governor or be serviced by those she discriminates against.

Get this bytch out of office, and now.

BRAVO! To Mr. Darden. If more Gay business people would boycott their oppressors, the world would see how important to society Gay people are. Who wants her bigoted money anyway. And what's an Hispanic woman doing being a republican? Those bastards never did anything for the Hispanic community. Mr. Darden should give this bitch a "butch" haircut -- and RUIN her. She's no better than a female guard at Auschwitz -- and I AM serious about this!

Exactly why big businesses dont want to get into benefits for domestic partners, etc. Either way you go, you're sure to piss off somebody.

And yet, at some point people have got to stand up for what they believe in. If his business takes a hit because he refuses to serve someone who's position of power so directly affects both his personal happiness and that of thousands of other people at least he will know in his heart that he did the right thing. The time has come for *everyone* to ask themselves just exactly what they believe in and be prepared to fight for it if necessary. Bravo, sir!

I never heard of the man until now. I am guessing his business will skyrocket.

Thank You Angie- couldnt have said it any better myself. I hope he is flooded with business by people who support his stand & his courage-if I lived there I would certainly make it a point to do business with Darden....

I agree 100%. I have an opinion on everything. But I dont submit letters to the editor about the vast majority of them so as not to harm the business I work for or my sales.

I want to applaud him...

but then I wonder what is the difference between what he's doing, and what a christian business owner might do by refusing to service gay people.

Or what a white redneck might do by refusing to service black people.

I realize they are not perfect analogies, but ultimately what we are applauding is his right as a business owner to tell someone (or anyone) to f' off simply because he disagree's with them in some manner or another.

I think thats a dangerous slippery slope to go down.

We've made a lot of progress to get to a point where a business cant discriminate against people, and what this guy did is basically discriminate against the governor because he doesnt agree with her.

Im not sure thats worthy of applause, it just feels like sinking to their level and nothing more.

Jessica, your analogies are more than "not perfect." They're totally flawed. The "Christian" business owner and redneck are bigots, refusing to serve people based on their color or sexual orientation. Darden is refusing to serve a bigot. He is a business owner, and has earned the right to do this. I am a mere public servant, and I have to smile at every bigot who walks in. Hats off to you, Darden.

Pretty sure Jeremy's statement flies in the face of every anti-discrimination law in the books. The stylist is selling his services, and so long as they are for sale, then it is anyone's right to purchase them, just as if it he were instead selling material goods. If the stylist doesn't want to cut the hair of an anti-gay marriage governor, or of any other particular individual, then he has to close up shop.

BTW, I have always supported gay marriage, as I am against all forms of discrimination, particularly when they are promulgated by a government which is funded by my tax dollars. But you simply cannot make a stand for gay marriage by discriminating against those who oppose it, as that makes you a hypocrite.

Angie and Peace -- so this hairstylist walks into a restaurant and the owner refuses him service because he's gay, or because of his viewpoint on the Governor. You're fine with that, right? Because the restaurant owner is standing up for what she believes. And Robinh2, last time I checked "bigot" is not a protected class, and the stylist is just as much a bigot for opposing a perfectly legitimate perspective.

I don't know if you're right or not about picking and choosing who you want to serve because of their stand on an issue, but five will get you ten that if a barber hung out a sign that said No gay marriage sympathizers allowed, he'd get slapped with a lawsuit the first day.

As a business owner it is his right to not serve anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants.

That was the exact defense of the Southern business owners for denying blacks equal service. My how things change.

As a business owner it is his right to not serve anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants.

This is exactly what Ron Paul said, and was called a bigot.

Think about it, people. I would much rather a business owner make his/her feelings known BEFORE I use their services -- especially a hair dresser!!!!

Jessica, discrimination against an entire group of people based merely on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is indeed wrong. However, refusing to serve a particular person because of behavior or the beliefs of that particular person is NOT discrimination. Indeed, in my business, if we've had past problems with a particular person, we will refuse to serve them. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with discrimination of an entire group. And, since my business is in Santa Fe as well, I too would refuse to serve Susana Martinez.

I live in Santa Fe, and I'm surprised I don't know Antonio since the gay community here isn't all that big (the city only has 75,000 people). I will be sure to look him up though the next time I need a hair cut.

It is clear that people do not understand anti-discrimination laws. There is legal and illegal discrimination. Denying access to public accommodations, like the salon, would be illegal if the individual was discriminated against because of their membership in a protected class, i.e., African Americans, Hispanics, even white people. In certain municipalities, it is illegal to discriminate against someone due to his or her sexual orientation.

Mr. Darden has the right to deny service to anyone, except if the reason for denying services is due to membership in a protected class. Political beliefs are not a protected class. Mr. Darden is free to deny services to the Governor due to her failure to support same sex marriage. He would not be free to deny services to her because she was a woman. One is illegal and one is not.

To compare what Mr. Darden is doing to a business owner refusing services to a Black person is ludicrous. Marriage is a civil right as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. He doesn't have to provide services to someone who believes he is less than equal.

@mt83 He is not refusing to serve all anti-gay people just 1, the Governor, who's actions have affected him personally. That is not discrimination at all.

Many businesses here in Santa Fe have the words "I reserve the right" posted somewhere, meaning I reserve the right to refuse YOU service, not a class not a race or or someone of a particular political affiliation but you personally. A restaurant I was at recently threw someone out for being too loud on their cell phone, same thing.

James, Jennj and Tim (and maybe some others) - This is not an issue with the letter of the law. I agree that what he is doing here is not illegal according to written US law, for the reasons that Jennj correctly states. But that does not mean that this practice is not discriminatory - he is refusing service to someone because he disagrees with their political beliefs. That is discrimination, plain and simple, and it is a violation of the liberties of those who want to purchase the services he is selling.

If you want to make this an issue of written law, then the entire discussion is moot, because according to those same laws, marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman. If you are going to stand by the textbook definition of discrimination, then you have to also stand by the textbook definition of marriage. But luckily, there are those of us who are able to see through the laws of politicians, to simply what is right and what is wrong (natural law vs positive law, if you will).

Jessica-1170252

I realize they are not perfect analogies, but ultimately what we are applauding is his right as a business owner to tell someone (or anyone) to f' off simply because he disagree's with them in some manner or another.

Refusing to give service to a bigot is different that being a bigot. One has to do with integrity about human dignity, the other is not justifable no matter what analogy is used.

Jogrinder: Why on earth would I want to spend MY MONEY, MY TIME and MY ENERGY supporting a business that doesnt want me as a customer??? I absolutely have no problem if someone refuses me service for any reason at all- I'll just find a business that wants my money- and the last I heard we are in a recession and a lot of business owners want my money. The FREEDOM TO CHOOSE is a powerful and wonderful thing.

Refusing to give service to a bigot is different that being a bigot. One has to do with integrity about human dignity, the other is not justifable no matter what analogy is used.

Get off of your self-righteous soap box. They are both bigots, that is the point. One is a gay bigot and the other is a straight bigot. There is no way that you can make what this clown is doing right and not make yourself wrong in the same sentence. Try thinking.

,

Gay people want what straight people have: the right to be miserable. Either we abolish state sanctioned marriage and everyone have civil union, or we all get married. That's fair. That's equal.

I dont like hetero marriages either, most end up in divorce.

They simply suck at it...and it should be banned for the sake of the children.

Anyone can have an idiotic opinion, I just proved it.

Right you are- being nagged, annoyed by inlaws, arguing over money and extramarital affairs, and losing half of your assets in a divorce, why it's downright selfish to want to keep all that wholesome goodness to yourself. Everyone should be able to share / suffer it.

The traditional definition, years of history, and the biology of gender and reproduction clearly distinguish hetero and homo relationships. I have a hard time calling a relationship between two healthy people that has no chance of producing children a marriage (same argument for the childless by choice hetero couples, but at least they have the right equipment). Not one of these potential "gay couples" will ever naturally produce a family. The best they can hope for is to adopt. I keep hearing that traditional marriage will not be harmed by gay marriage, but in a system with limited resources, adding in an alternative to compete for resources with traditional marriage would certainly have an effect on traditional marriages and the rest of the public. Also, I often wonder how many homosexuals would be just as or more happy if they had found the right heterosexual partner in life before they decided that they were gay (no, I am not convinced of the validity of the "I'm born gay" argument). I know people who have come from a gay past in their younger years to find love and a happy marriage with someone of the opposite gender, so I know it happens even though it cannot be easy.

So -Jon-, when are you going to start lobbying for fertility tests before a marriage license is issued? Also, what exactly are these "limited resources" marriages consume? I'm at a total loss.

Jenni,

People with conditions preventing them from having children are exceptions to the argument that a family should be a self-replicating unit within society. Obviously, if they were healthy they would meet the requirements for the definition. Many times with the aid of medical intervention this can be made possible. Even with medical intervention, it is still currently impossible to have a child from the biological material of two men. Two women may be a different story, but would require violations of so many laws and ethical considerations that it is practically impossible as well.

The resources that you are a total loss for are called taxes - I am sure you have paid them at some point in your life,,, I hope.

Jon - We constantly confuse the issue of marriage with the issue of reproduction. Marriage is not necessary to the act of reproduction, to which millions of single parents can attest. The imposition of marriage as a prerequisite to reproduction is a consequence of our largely Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage and has little legitimate place in a secular republic such as ours. It is not legally required to be married to either produce or raise children, and incidentally, millions of your married couples suck at both. Similarly, reproduction is not the only legitimate reason for marriage - even, OMG, according to the Catholic Church. Sex for the Church has the dual legitimate purposes of reproduction and the expression of intimate love. The Church understands and promotes that, even without the possibility of reproduction, marriages are valid and sex within those marriages worthy of dignity as an expression of the love between the couple.

With Jennj, I am totally lost with your reference to limited resources and taxes. You have heard of the marriage penalty right; the situation in which married couples typically pay more taxes than they would as individuals? Also I would hazard a guess that married gay couples with adopted children are significantly less likely to use taxpayer supported day care than are single parents or the general population of married heterosexual couples. Finally, people who want to "defend marriage" by denying gay couples the right to marry, should try fixing the millions upon millions of broken, destructive, abusive heterosexual marriages before they go any further. They would do much more for "families" if they would fix the broken hetero marriages first.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage

Lost all of your credibility with this one. There is no such thing. Islam came 700 years after Christianity and shares none of its traditions or teachings. It shares an Abrahamic background, that's all. Let's quit blaming the fact that people largely do not support the union of Bill and Bob because of Christ. Secular, much to the chagrin of gays and atheists does NOT mean Godless. This is where your confusion roots from.

Amused - I am not at all confused. My reference was to the fact the Judiasm, Christianity and Islam are the three major monotheistic religions of the world and the chief proponents of limiting marriage to one man and one woman. If the rationale for similarly limiting marriage in the United States is based on this religious conviction then it violates the Constitutionally instituted separation of Church and State. Secular does, in fact, mean Godless.

And I wonder how many new customers will flock to his business just because he wasn't afraid to stand up to a bully?

Freedom of choice. Vote with your feet. :)

Same-sex marriage (which may also include the 1% homosexual population with Gay Marriage) is illegal in just about every US state. The governor's opinion is in line with the law, and we should be surprised if the governor expresses illegal wishes.

Being opposed to something doesn't make them a bully.

A lot of us opposed the war in Iraq. Are we bullies too?

As long as it's left to the states, we will see more and more states support marriage equality. You can't stop social progressiveness. However, I suspect that in 10-20 years or so it will be seen as a civil rights issue, and the federal government will make marriage equality legal in every state, just like blacks legally able to marry whites.

To nearly everyone under 30, they don't see what the big deal is at all. Those people will be the legislators soon enough.

Don't make it right, though, Vincent.

@Vincent -- Gay Marriage is legal in over 6 states, and if you include states that recognize legal domestic partnerships (civil unions), then over 38% of this country (in population) recognize gay unions.

So, you're just not factually correct when you say "Practically every state" ... and not to further explode your head ... Maryland is about to approve it as well.

Repeating the assumption that gay people are only one percent of the population makes any stupidlty you follow it with pointless.

if the alternative was sex with you, chester, it just might be

And I wonder how many new customers will flock to his business just because he wasn't afraid to stand up to a bully?

I want to be a part of the billionaire's yacht club, but I don't have a billion dollars or a yacht. Is it wrong for them to deny me admission? Are they bullies?

My thoughts as well. You are okay to cut my hair, but if I discriminate against you it's okay.

I doubt that many of his clients didn't already know he was gay, so I don't think he will lose many if any clients, and even may attract new clients. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to cut her hair either knowing she thought I didn't deserve the same rights she did, and he has the right to refuse her.

If you read the whole article you'd see where it states that she's appointed an openly gay man to a prominent political position, but feel free to continue to skim through stuff and think you know the whole story.

Martinez has come under some criticism from the religious right for naming an openly gay man to a post with the state Public Regulation Commission, KOB.com said.

And that gives her tolerance credits because..?

I wouldn't be surprised if she had consulted with legal folks first to arrive at that appointment decision to find out whether there was a way to appoint someone less qualified but non-gay. Of course that's just speculation, but in my opinion it's really just a matter of putting one and one together.

I personally don't know anybody who genuinely accepts gays for who they are but wouldn't share with them the right to get married.

Agreement.

Maybe the way to get political attention from mayor on up to Washington is for people to make life more difficult for them. They certinally don't make things easy for us.

opposite of that. Its only ok if the "victim group" does it. <sarcasm>

That would be discrimination against a minority based on race. This is fighting against discrimination towards a minority. However, if we are able to include sexual preference to the list of affected classes under the civil rights act, it would be illegal to discriminate against gays based solely on their being gay.

Discrimination against politicians would still be OK though.

Peanut, which group is being discriminated against? The race of bigoted governors? This is between two people. You are allowed to be angry at a person for imposing a second class status on you. It's not the same as putting a "whites only" sign outside your door.

Its not similar. Refusing all black people would be refusing ALL people based on race. Refusing this hypocrite is a personal refusal. See the difference there? ALL vs someone personally selected?

This hair stylist is against anyone who is anti-gay.Anti-gays are a LARGE group of people.

Random. You realize that the hair stylist is gay right? If someone is anti-you, why would you serve them? That's not a race of people, it's people who are actively attacking you. It's like not letting the guy who kicked you in the shin back into your store. Oh boo hoo, you're discriminating against people who are against you.

Random. You realize that the hair stylist is gay right? If someone is anti-you, why would you serve them?

Following your logic then, why is it discrimination in the reverse situation? It's should be ok, because it should be expected. I think it is hypocritical to say that minority populations should be able to get away with behavior that is deemed "unacceptable" for the majority population.

Jon, denying service to a single person because that person has discriminated against you isn't the same as legislating against an entire population. It's like saying if someone kicks you for being fat and you don't let him over anymore, then you're just as bad as he is.

Dante - don't try logic on this one...it won't work...just look at his picture: he's calling a guy who's at least 10x smarter than he is a 'moron'. All editors of the Harvard Law Review are morons I guess.

I think more basic question is whether or not govt should be recognizing and paying benefits to ANY marriages in the first place.

But that is what most of them do. Some want huge religious rights because that is what they happen to believe, but don't want gays to have the same rights they do. Some want blacks not to have equal rights or poor people or whomever they happen not to feel should be equal, but they will tell you they want all other kinds of equality. It's equal or not...sorry, Governor.

Peanut, obviously if you are going to give rights to people, you can't discriminate. If you want the state to pretend everyone is single, that's an entirely separate issue and it's never going to happen.

Obviously it's only to misdirect from their prejudice when people start questioning the validity of marriage. What's at issue here is equal treatment under the law, not some kind of initiative to pretend relationships don't exist.

Did you fail to read the whole article, Mark? The very last line states that she's taken heat from religious groups over appointing an openly gay man to a prominent political position, so I think she's shown that she is able to judge a person on their merits and not discriminating against them.

Martinez has come under some criticism from the religious right for naming an openly gay man to a post with the state Public Regulation Commission, KOB.com said.

Jeff, she's such a visionary! Imagine how progressive she would have to be to hire a gay person! That reminds me of when people in the south started hiring sharecroppers. Can you imagine? Black people being able to work? Wow, that was just all the proof we needed that racism was dead.

I still can't imagine how far we've come. The bravery it took that woman to not reject a qualified person completely as too subhuman to work.

Jeff....you don't get it.

She actively discriminates against gays by not supporting their right to marry. Just because she gives a gay man a job does not excuse her discrimination against a whole population. She judges on person one his merits, but yet denies basic rights to a whole class of people regardless of their merit.

That is discrimination.

That sentence is like the old racist retort.....I don't hate black people, my mechanic is black.

corona, but can you imagine? She doesn't think one gay person is too filthy and lowly to work in one post. She's completely above any criticism of discrimination. One you cross that bar are regard gay people at least as high as a pack mule, then you're in the clear.

not to mention other orifices

Because people like you and me keep reading it and responding to it......

You do not speak for the non-gay community. Many straight people support marriage equality and believe being against it is just stupid.

But then you'd be the "homophobe."

They have an answer for everything-- double standards at their finest.

Oh my-- what was 'right' for him-- but if it's 'right' for someone to be opposed to gay marriage, that's horrible, right?

Gaaah!!!

Love it! Very funny, thanks for your humor. He could have given her a butch cut -- like mine!

I disagree. The problem is your assumption about "ways to do this." What is "this?" I think "this" is about a man getting to keep his dignity by not serving others who believe he is less of a person than others are. Perhaps your view is more pragmatic in helping gay rights, but the dignity view is simply more important.

If cutting her hair offends him, why should he? It seems to me that he handled the whole matter with dignity and aplomb. He certainly doesn't have to check in with the maturity police.