There have been several topics about state bills allowing discrimination. I'm curious how others feel about this case of a hairstylist refusing to provide service to an existing client strictly for their personal views. My view on whether an individual can refuse service is unchanged between the various cases of individuals choosing to do so. How do others feel?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/23/hairstylist-refuses-to-cut-new-mexico-governors-hair-over-stance-on-gay-marriage/

When is it a difference of opinion, and when is it hate?

I want Coke to be the official state drink, you want Pepsi.
Certainly a difference of opinion.

I want all left-handed people to be sent to labor camps or deported from the country? (Subsititute your favorite hated minority).
Hope we can all agree that this is true hate.

I want only straight people to be allowed to raise their kids as a married couple.
Hate? Or difference of opinion?

My answer: If you are in favor of denying some group of people rights that you enjoy, it is hate. Period.

I can't condemn a refusal to condone hate.

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."

Sounds like the stylist is exercising his freedom of conscience.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 03, 2014, 12:54:36 PM
When is it a difference of opinion, and when is it hate?

I want Coke to be the official state drink, you want Pepsi.
Certainly a difference of opinion.

I want all left-handed people to be sent to labor camps or deported from the country? (Subsititute your favorite hated minority).
Hope we can all agree that this is true hate.

I want only straight people to be allowed to raise their kids as a married couple.
Hate? Or difference of opinion?

My answer: If you are in favor of denying some group of people rights that you enjoy, it is hate. Period.

I can't condemn a refusal to condone hate.

The hairstylist is denying a group rights others enjoy, you defined that as hate but then don't condemn it.

I suspect many share your opinion. I agree with most of your sentiments. But it seems if you truly despise discrimination, you have to denounce it for those you strongly disagree or don't for anyone.

Who decides what's acceptable forms of discrimination? Who do we put in place to determine who has their mind's right? What if that group changes?

Should we force a hairdresser to give service to someone who has head lice? If we decide what is acceptable and what isn't, then we've defined classes of people, we have a two tiered society. I don't believe the government should decide, let individuals decide their actions and let them be accountable for them. The alternative seems like a very slippery slope.

The problem here is that nowhere in the stylist's Holy Writ is being against homosexuality considered a sin (his personal opinion, perhaps; but opinions enjoy fewer rights than beliefs); nor is cutting her hair aiding an action he considers sin. He's making a political statement and arguably discriminating - Jim Crow style - against particular religious views. Which is wrong. Legally, morally, ethically. This hairdresser is a partisan ass. (Note that the governor has not sued him; she is much more magnanimous than the 'victims' of the New Mexico baker etc.)

Is it legal to do anything about it? To force him to serve her? I think the answer depends on your views of Arizona's bill, and of appropriate response.

It's kinda hypocritical of him regardless. It's like if a 1950s Republican decided to give 1950s Democrats their own horrible-standards 'separate but equal' accommodations to "teach them a lesson", rather than educating and fighting the legal battle for civil rights.

I would like to think I would cut her hair if I had the skill and maybe take the opportunity to have a dialogue with her on our difference of opinion. Maybe they have done this and it had not gone so well, but I would think that would have made it into the story. So from what I can tell, I think he should have taken her appointment and proved himself head and shoulders above her misguided opinions.

Quote from: ZoeM on March 03, 2014, 03:01:10 PM
The problem here is that nowhere in the stylist's Holy Writ is being against homosexuality considered a sin (his personal opinion, perhaps; but opinions enjoy fewer rights than beliefs); nor is cutting her hair aiding an action he considers sin.

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Shakespeare - Richard the Third.

I believe that denying rights enjoyed by one group to another on religious grounds or due to ingrained customs is both immoral and oppressive.
Not everyone subscribes to one philosophy or religion. Governmental and legal decisions based on religious beliefs impinge upon our freedoms to act in accordance with our beliefs both religious and moral.

Quote from: ZoeM on March 03, 2014, 03:01:10 PM
opinions enjoy fewer rights than beliefs

I think that you have hit upon the real problem right there...

If it is immoral for Saudi Arabia to refuse women the right to drive, then I feel that by the same token it is immoral to deny homosexual and bisexual people the right to express their love for one another through the institution of marriage. I don't believe that there is anything sinful about love between consenting adults.

Quote from: Toni on March 03, 2014, 03:49:09 PM
I would like to think I would cut her hair if I had the skill and maybe take the opportunity to have a dialogue with her on our difference of opinion. Maybe they have done this and it had not gone so well, but I would think that would have made it into the story. So from what I can tell, I think he should have taken her appointment and proved himself head and shoulders above her misguided opinions.

I think Toni has the right of it, rather than descend to her level he could have enquired as to the reasons behind her decision and questioned the morality of her actions.

Quote from: Nikko on March 03, 2014, 02:00:01 PM
But it seems if you truly despise discrimination, you have to denounce it for those you strongly disagree or don't for anyone.

Sorry. I've thought about this every which way and backward, and I just can't cast haters as an oppressed minority.

It's my view that a hair stylist is employed to do hair, not promote their political views.  I really don't get why people can't separate their views with how they treat other people and do their jobs.  Even if I'm on the hair stylist's side politically speaking, I think that is very unprofessional and impolite behavior. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 03, 2014, 05:13:34 PM
Sorry. I've thought about this every which way and backward, and I just can't cast haters as an oppressed minority.

How do you define hate? It's a strictly personal view. I believe anyone who performs abortions after a certain length of time, especially partial birth abortions are engaging in a hateful activity. You may not. Who's right?

If I find it entirely repugnant to work closely with someone who does this, should I be forced to? I say no. I may choose to, it would depend on the situation.

Take the example of the hairdresser. If a partial-birth abortion doctor just came in and didn't discuss their business, then I'd probably just go about my business. What if they loved discussing it and it made me ill. Shouldn't I be able to say no more?

I don't see any reason why you as a member of the public should be forced to listen to someone talk about a topic that you found repugnant.
You aren't a politician or a committee which deals with said issues (are you? I feel that I'm being presumptuous).
I agree that out-with extreme circumstances (such as kidnapping and rape) aborting a child who is developed enough to survive birth is reprehensible.

Sorry to ask this Nikko, but those avatar pictures you're using are they meant to be ironic or sarcastic?

Quote from: Falconer on March 03, 2014, 08:25:16 PM
Sorry to ask this Nikko, but those avatar pictures you're using are they meant to be ironic or sarcastic?

No problemo.

They're iconic.

My favorite time period I've experienced is late 60's thru mid 70's and I love iconic images from that time period. It was a wonderful time to be alive for a child (not so much if you were being sent off to Vietnam, and it was unfortunately when the war of the sexes was starting to heat up, etc.), but there was no 24/7 news cycles and no 250 channels on TV. Phones were confined to the kitchen wall or the office. No internet had some nice advantages too. It was a very free and wonderful time to grow up. And yes, magazine ads were amazingly sexist and dorky! It was a much less politically correct time. I loved it and I would love to see us regain some of that... won't happen but I can dream. 

I wouldn't call a stylist the sort of artistic expression that I would consider outside of public accommodation, so the way I see it he is violating the governors rights...

The way I see it, an artist that doesn't have set fees and commissions wouldn't be public accommodation, for example if a painter on the boardwalk who draws others for a fee refuses to paint for example a black person who has the money to pay they are violating another rights. If a musician who makes albums and sells them however doesn't want to make songs with a Jewish folk singer then they are not violating anyone's rights because the musician isn't taking a fee for service but producing an artistic work to later sell. This is why if I were to ask to work with some Christian band on a song in the studio it is okay for them to say "no we only work with other Christian artists", but it wouldn't be fine if I were to a go to hobby lobby and them refuse to sell me some fabric because i am an atheist.

So in essence, the hairstylist is in the wrong here from my point of view and being a bad sport. If I were the hairstylist I would take the job and make my opinions well known to the governor that she probably wouldn't come back willingly after all freedom of speech is still applicable.

Quote from: Nikko on March 03, 2014, 05:32:18 PM
How do you define hate?

I think I spelled that out very clearly in my post above.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,160453.msg1372957.html#msg1372957

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 04, 2014, 06:04:06 AM
I think I spelled that out very clearly in my post above.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,160453.msg1372957.html#msg1372957

And like I say, each individual defines it differently. Which definition do we use? What will the list of offenses consist of?

Something tells me a person's political leanings will determine whether their actions are considered hate. Bad idea.

Quote from: ZoeM on March 03, 2014, 03:01:10 PM
The problem here is that nowhere in the stylist's Holy Writ is being against homosexuality considered a sin (his personal opinion, perhaps; but opinions enjoy fewer rights than beliefs); nor is cutting her hair aiding an action he considers sin. He's making a political statement and arguably discriminating - Jim Crow style - against particular religious views. Which is wrong. Legally, morally, ethically. This hairdresser is a partisan ass. (Note that the governor has not sued him; she is much more magnanimous than the 'victims' of the New Mexico baker etc.)

Is it legal to do anything about it? To force him to serve her? I think the answer depends on your views of Arizona's bill, and of appropriate response.

It's kinda hypocritical of him regardless. It's like if a 1950s Republican decided to give 1950s Democrats their own horrible-standards 'separate but equal' accommodations to "teach them a lesson", rather than educating and fighting the legal battle for civil rights.

I could make up some religion that discriminates against people who are against gays.  I could write a big book filled with fairy tales and nonsense about stoning people to death, get a cult following, take over the US government, and then would it be okay to hate on people who hate gays?

The self-hatred in this community is mind numbing.  I just can't fathom the rationalizations people make for the disenfranchisement of their own brothers and sisters in this fight for equality in the 21st century

Quote from: Hideyoshi
The self-hatred in this community is mind numbing.  I just can't fathom the rationalizations people make for the disenfranchisement of their own brothers and sisters in this fight for equality in the 21st century

AMEN sister. Preach it!