Fair enough. There are more hairdressers around.
Now, how many people are going to line up to force this person to serve the governor – exactly as they would force "conservatives" to serve those they find distasteful?

This time, it's different. Well, it might be. There are licenses and health inspections and taxes... Wait, it's not Christie we're talking about. Or Obama. Me, I'd cut the hair, unless homosexuality is contagious... I'm too old to change.

If I were the governor, I'd look elsewhere, because who wants someone who doesn't like you with sharp instruments near your head?

Well, I won't expect those crying for bakers to bake a cake for gay weddings to mention this act of "discrimination."

If they did, then watch out overhead because that means pigs will be flying. (and you thought bird poop was bad; watch out for that flying pig shit)

Seriously though, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't a set up to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the situation.

Discrimination on the basis of sexuality is evil and must be stamped out everywhere. Discrimination on the basis of "bigotry"? Why sure, no problem, go right ahead!

"Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of action or policy." ~ Evan Sayet

I see nothing wrong with his decision.

And now that he publicly announced his decision if he gets more or no business that's his problem.

Sigh...

Some of you people are so fucking slow on the uptake, it's absolutely pointless to try and explain anything.

I'll type this very slowly in hopes that even some of your feeble minds can grasp this.

In those states which compel people to serve gays against their beliefs, gays are a protected class. Those particular business people have no more right to discriminate against gays than they would against blacks. They don't like it? Move to another state or take up another line of work.

Now, this hairstylist is not engaging in discrimination. He is not refusing to serve anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, lambada dancers or whatever. He is refusing to serve a particular person. He can do that. Anyone in any state has the right to turn away any individual they choose, as long as it is not based upon a refusal to serve a particular class of persons.

Get it yet?

So all N. Mex. has to do is make "governors" a "protected class" and Patrick would have no qualms about imprisoning this dude for failing to cut her hair.

Patrick, The Governor is a woman. Isn't that like "lambada dancer", a protected class?

Patrick, they're right. As a woman, the governor is a member of a protected class and cannot legally be refused service by anyone. By legal definition, refusal to associate with any one person of a protected class constitutes discrimination against the entire class. It's a strict-liability defintion and mens rea does not have to be demonstrated.

You could legally refuse to serve me, as a whilte male. However, you cannot legally refuse to serve, say, Sarah Palin.

Actually, the hairdresser could be forced to serve the governor.

This is New Mexico, where a judge did require a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding, so there is precedent.

So suck it up (phrasing) gay hair dresser, or face the consequences. There's a phrase that keeps rattling around in my head...oh, yeah:

As you sow, so shall ye reap.

Perhaps Patrick would like square this round peg without making me giggle:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

He has the power to make her look like a bald clown. She might want find a new stylist. Or grow her hair and trim it herself. NEVER piss off someone with scissors in one hand and your hair in the other.

(Typing slowly) (elementary teacher voice)

Patrick? Patrick?
Honey?
Because of the freedom to associate - you know, a *right* – any person may claim to be of one of these "protected" classes, and then claim "discrimination!"
Then, the small business owner, right along with the huge corporation, can be harassed and sued, with government blessing.
(normal voice)
And yours, apparently.

It is so easy to clamor for government action to force "other people" to do things that many people fail to notice that the same principle can be turned on them.

Now, this hairstylist is not engaging in discrimination. He is not refusing to serve anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, lambada dancers or whatever. He is refusing to serve a particular person. He can do that. Anyone in any state has the right to turn away any individual they choose, as long as it is not based upon a refusal to serve a particular class of persons. -- Patrick at March 4, 2014 5:35 AM

So somehow his standing on principle is his right and needs to be allowed? But the governor not signing a law by standing on principle has no rights and should not be allowed to force this guy to cut her hair?

Please get your ethos to be consistent before lecturing us.

Interesting how in Colorado, where same sex marriage is banned by the state constitution, a white Christian baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In New Mexico, where same sex marriage is legal, a white female Christian photographer can be forced to take wedding photos of a same sex wedding. The Navaho tribes in New Mexico still prohibit same sex marriage, so could a gay couple force a Navaho photographer to take pictures of their wedding? Would they? What if the Navaho photographer also happened to be a Christian?

I think mixing and matching different combinations of legally protected minorities and victim groups on opposite sides of various issues in a courtroom would make great TV entertainment. It would be interesting to see how the PC victim status pecking order settles out.

Dennis Prager has words of wisdom applicable to this situation today: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

Patrick, what you say is correct as far as the law is concerned, and I think everyone gets that. What everyone else is saying is that such laws are f***ing ridiculous. I don't know if you fail to understand that, or if you just pretend not to because you don't agree.

Seriously though, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't a set up to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the situation.

Not much gets by you, does it?

Cousin: Patrick, they're right. As a woman, the governor is a member of a protected class and cannot legally be refused service by anyone. By legal definition, refusal to associate with any one person of a protected class constitutes discrimination against the entire class. It's a strict-liability defintion and mens rea does not have to be demonstrated.

You could legally refuse to serve me, as a whilte male. However, you cannot legally refuse to serve, say, Sarah Palin.

Actually, women are not protected by the Civil Rights Act, and state laws may vary. I know that there are certain types of businesses in Florida that do refuse to serve on the basis of gender.

For instance, women's fitness clubs. They can refuse to serve men because gender based discrimination is not a crime. At least not in Florida.

Yes, I can refuse to serve Sarah Palin...however, I had better not cite gender as the reason for refusing her.

But say, gender-based discrimination is a crime, and Sarah Palin walks into my business. I can refuse to serve her. And if she wants to go to court over it, she had better prove that my reasons for refusing her were solely or predominantly based upon her gender. How would she do this? Maybe if she found that I refusing to serve a disproportionate number of women in my establishment.

I could refuse to serve her for a myriad of reasons. This is why, when stores refuse to serve certain people, and the rebuffed customer asks why, the clerk is best served by simply saying, "Because we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and we are not obligated to give a reason. Now please leave."

Once you give an answer, you may be obligated to defend it in court.

dee nile: So all N. Mex. has to do is make "governors" a "protected class" and Patrick would have no qualms about imprisoning this dude for failing to cut her hair.

Actually, that would work...but only if such a law stands up to a legal challenge, which I doubt it would. How could make a protected class which, by definition, could only be filled by one person at a time. It smacks of "royal treatment." No one is allowed to refuse the business of the governor of this state. Not even the President has that right.

Jim P. So somehow his standing on principle is his right and needs to be allowed? But the governor not signing a law by standing on principle has no rights and should not be allowed to force this guy to cut her hair?

Please get your ethos to be consistent before lecturing us.

First it doesn't need to be allowed; it is allowed. He is refusing to serve a particular person because of her stance on a particular issue. He can do that. Whether it's ultimately wise or foolish is not the question. It is his right.

But I particularly enjoy this quantum leap you made. How one particular hairstylist refuses to serve the governor, suddenly means "she has no rights."

Wow. Who'd have thought a hairstylist with no elected office could suddenly strip a governor of her rights?

But anyway, he is not refusing to serve her on the basis of her gender, race, or whether she's a lambada dancer, therefore it's not a question of discrimination. His refusal is based upon who she is, not what she is.

To be frank, Jim P., that was a pretty goddamned dumb statement you just made. You should be embarrassed.

But anyway, he is not refusing to serve her on the basis of her gender, race, or whether she's a lambada dancer, therefore it's not a question of discrimination. His refusal is based upon who she is, not what she is. -- Patrick at March 4, 2014 5:55 PM

So the Christian baker that doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings can't stand on the who his principles?

This story would have been a lot funnier if the hairdresser had given the Governor a 1980's butch lumberjack haircut by surprise.

gays are a protected class.

And that's the entire fucking problem right there, Patrick.

There should be NO protected classes. None.

Well, at least you're asking questions, Jim P.

Let's say I'm a baker who doesn't believe in gay marriage in one of the states, such as California, where gays are a protected class. Now a gay person comes in and wants to get a cake for his wedding.

There a couple of ways I can handle this. Which one do you think will be the most successful?

1) I say, "I don't believe in gay marriage and will not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding."

Or...

2) I say, "Gosh, I'm so booked and I won't be able to take on any new orders for that entire month or the following month. But there's another bakery in Wilmont that's only twenty miles from here. Give them a shot."

Remembering that I'm supposed to be a baker who doesn't believe in gay marriage, which one is less likely to get me in trouble?

Well, if the gay customer tries to sue me in scenario 1, he'll win easily. I just admitted that I don't believe in gay marriage and stated that I would never bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In the second scenario, I used a ruse to avoid committing myself to a principled stance. And was still able to refuse the customer.

The point is, you can refuse anyone, but if this person is a member of a protected class, and you're so flat out stupid as to admit that you refuse to provide a service for a member of the class, you'll be eaten alive in court.

It isn't what you refuse or whom you refuse; it's why you refuse.

In the second scenario, by the way, he can still win. But he would have to prove that you're refusing to serve him because he's gay. He might be able to do that, if I conveniently find reasons to turn away other gay customers, or if I accepted additional orders for the months in which I claimed I was booked solid.

He would more than likely find the burden of proof more trouble than it's worth.

jimg, that's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm not committing myself to a position on whether or not their should be protected classes. And that's not the point I'm addressing. I'm simply stating that this is the way the law is; not that it's the way I think it should be.

Ken R., that's a good point about Colorado. I think the defendant should appeal, in that case. The judge is clearly foisting his own values on the ruling, rather than applying the rule of law.

"It isn't what you refuse or whom you refuse; it's why you refuse."

And this is the tip of the iceberg you do not admit exists:

All anyone has to do to tie you up in court is make a claim.

You are consistent, I'll give you that. If it happens to "someone else", you are simply not concerned - and you will not be until the law forces you to do something.

"But he would have to prove that you're refusing to serve him because he's gay. He might be able to do that, if I conveniently find reasons to turn away other gay customers, or if I accepted additional orders for the months in which I claimed I was booked solid. "

Your second sentence refutes the argument you make in the first sentence. In the first sentence, you state that the plaintiff has to demonstrate mens rea; the fact that I refused to serve him because he's gay. However, in the second sentence, you state that a statistical argument can prevail; if I haven't served enough gay customers, I am guilty. I don't even have to be aware of which customers are gay; if I fail the statisticsl test, that's prima facie.

And in fact, eliminating the demonstration of intent has been the whole thrust of civil rights law since the '60s. When the EEOC wants to prosecute a company for not having enough employees of minority group X, do they have to demonstrate that the company is intentionally excluding people of X? No, all they have to do is count noses, decide that the company has not fulfilled its quota of X (the number for which is not obtainable, exists only in the EEOC's hive mind, and changes according to the EEOC's whim), and that's that. No exculpatory evidence is possible; good intent on the company's part is not a defense. This applies even in the case of small businesses where it would be mathematically impossible to comply with all of the different requirements for all of the protected classes out there.

"Gosh, I'm so booked and I won't be able to take on any new orders for that entire month or the following month. But there's another bakery in Wilmont that's only twenty miles from here. Give them a shot."

That scenario, Patrick, is contingent upon the baker ascertaining that the cake is for a gay wedding before acknowledging he has the time and capacity to handle the job.

If he's already said he can bake a cake and have it ready on a certain day....

Conan: That scenario, Patrick, is contingent upon the baker ascertaining that the cake is for a gay wedding before acknowledging he has the time and capacity to handle the job.

Very true. If he already agrees to do it, the wants an out once he discovers it's for a gay wedding, he would have to tread much more delicately to pull it off.

First it doesn't need to be allowed; it is allowed. He is refusing to serve a particular person because of her stance on a particular issue. He can do that. Whether it's ultimately wise or foolish is not the question. It is his right.

So then, when a gay couple seeks to engage the services of an artisan who does not support gay marriage the artisan should parse his words?

Rather than say
"I cant help you because I think gay marrige is immoral"

He should say
"I refuse to serve you as an individual becasue I do not agree with you political opinion on gay marriage"

Thats a great argument Patrick. Somehow I dont think it will hold up in court for people discriminating against gays

The point is, you can refuse anyone, but if this person is a member of a protected class, and you're so flat out stupid as to admit that you refuse to provide a service for a member of the class, you'll be eaten alive in court. -- Patrick at March 4, 2014 9:57 PM

There should never be special rights or protected classes at this point in time.

Why should someone have the right to make demands on anyone else just because of who they enjoy fucking?

He is not breaking any anti-discrimination laws. There is a difference, a huge difference.

He is not refusing to serve women, that is discrimination, he refused to provide a service to an individual. let me say it again: It does not matter that she is a woman which makes her part of a "protected class", he is not refusing to serve women as a whole, just an individual. If the cake baker in the previous argument has a history of not serving gays, that is discrimination because he or she is discrimination against a class of people.

A different example involving a protected class:
It is the same for doctors with private practices refusing to serve a patient because they falsely sued the doctor in court. The man was prescribed medication, didn't take medication, it got worse making him go to the hospital, man sues doctor and loses, man brings daughter the very next week (she is a protected class) he legally kicked the guy and his daughter out because he would likely be sued again.

Private business, protected class, serves women, still denies a girl, completely legal and he was OK with it because a hospital was literally in walking distance if she was in danger and other doctors less than 2min drive away.

A different example involving a protected class:

It is the same for doctors with private practices refusing to serve a patient because … -- NakkiNyan at March 5, 2014 3:30 PM

A different example involving a protected class:

An OB/Gyn surgeon has a black, juvevinle, lesbian, rape victim show up at his office with all the signs of having been violently raped and the police and medical records to show it is true three weeks later. She wants an abortion. The OB/Gyn doesn't do abortions at all. He is a Catholic and has never done one in the past. Does she have a right to demand that he does it for her?

Why or why not?

The problem is that the government is trying to legislate morality and principles. These are societal issues. The current culture is confused and disparate. But prior to the 64 civil rights acts the government acted in the "separate but equal" mindset. They legislated the differences to the disadvantage of blacks. Now they are try to legislate in favor of the "protected" classes.
Both directions of legislation are wrong.

There are some areas that biases need to be legislated against, usually in the emergency services areas and such.

Then there are some areas where minimum standards need to be maintained, such as military and especially special forces.

Here's my suggestion for how her lawyer should try this case:

Q. Mr. Darden, have you ever said that Governor Martinez is an idiot?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you stand by that statement now?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you are discriminating against her because of a mental disability, and such discrimination is banned by the ADA.