Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage

[daddyo]

Christian baker is vilified and sued because he chooses not to do business with a gay couple.

 

Gay hair stylist refuses to do business with NM Gov. Martinez because she believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and for some strange reason, that's OK.

 

This is a GLARING double standard, but it's what we've come to expect from the looney left.

 

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3128921/posts

[TrickyNicky]

The classic double standard.

Personally I say let her decide who's hair she wants to cut and why. Of course, while I disagree with the baker, he too should have the freedom to choose who he engages business with.

[Caster]

I guess I'll never understand any of it.  No one has the right to tell another what they can and cannot do, so long as WHAT they are doing is not hurting someone else.  

THe ONLY thing I should be bound by law to do when it comes to someone else's lifestyle is ignore it provided it is not interfering with my ability to live MY lifestyle.  

 

Stupid.  All of this is mind numbingly STUPID.

[daddyo]

I'm betting that Gov. Martinez will do the mature and responsible thing, and simply go find another hair stylist, as opposed to the gay couple, who acted like three-year-olds who didn't get their way and decided to abuse the legal system and take the baker to court over their hurt feelings.

Edited March 3, 2014 by daddyo

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm betting that Gov. Martinez will do the mature and responsible thing, and simply go find another hair stylist, as opposed to the gay couple, who acted like three-year-olds who didn't get their way and decided to abuse the legal system and take the baker to court over their hurt feelings.

That's too simple. Gays always tend to put a political fight out there. She can have her opinion, just like them, but they won't allow that.

[Dustbuster]

I guess I'll never understand any of it. No one has the right to tell another what they can and cannot do, so long as WHAT they are doing is not hurting someone else.
THe ONLY thing I should be bound by law to do when it comes to someone else's lifestyle is ignore it provided it is not interfering with my ability to live MY lifestyle.

Stupid. All of this is mind numbingly STUPID.

I agree, on top of this I still don't get why sexual preference has to be shoved down our throats versus being left in the bedroom. I believe in a live and let live America to a degree but Adam and Steve shouldn't have anything more than Adam and Eve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[whitewolf001]

Probably the stylists reaction...

[Chucktshoes]

I support this stylist's decision to voluntarily disassociate with someone and decline to provide their services to a potential client.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess I'll never understand any of it.  No one has the right to tell another what they can and cannot do, so long as WHAT they are doing is not hurting someone else.  

THe ONLY thing I should be bound by law to do when it comes to someone else's lifestyle is ignore it provided it is not interfering with my ability to live MY lifestyle.  

 

Stupid.  All of this is mind numbingly STUPID.

It really has less to do with gay rights than that group of people being used as useful idiots in a political agenda. But I guess that's

not too chic to talk about. The ones who are gay and not personally bound to engage in the political fight are usually very good

people. They don't let things like this become too tedious.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I support this stylist's decision to voluntarily disassociate with someone and decline to provide their services to a potential client.

I do, too. :D

[daddyo]

I support this stylist's decision to voluntarily disassociate with someone and decline to provide their services to a potential client.

 

This is also what I believe. However, if the baker is going to be denied the same right, then equality is a little one-sided.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="daddyo" post="1119459" timestamp="1393867891"]This is also what I believe. However, if the baker is going to be denied the same right, then equality is a little one-sided.[/quote] That's my point.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I bet the stylist will sue the govenor now because the sylist lost revenue by refusing the serve the govenor. I seriously doubt the stylist will just let it be. I bet she will find some sort of reason to file a lawsuit against the govenor, the state as well as anyone else she can blame. I would love to see the govenor sue, using the wedding cake case as a precident, the stylist and geta judgement. I say fight fire with fire.

 

With that being said this is what is wrong with the county, everyone suing over stuff they should not be sued over. And those that are suing know that if they loose the court case they will not be held accoutable because they have nothing to loose. Personally I would like to see it where if someone sues and it is determined to be frivolous then the plaintiff should be required to pay financially and if they cannot then they should be charged criminally for fraud then be tossed in jail. Maybe when these "nothing left to loose" types start actually loosing their freedom they might change their attitude.

 

I recently read a story about a guy who had filed dozens of suits against businesses in a shopping mall hoping to get a win in one. They were all thrown out but he could not be held accountable because he nothing yet the businesses he tried to sue were out thousands upon thousands of dollars to mount a defense. He even told the businesses he would settle for less so they would not have to go to court. Glad all those businesses stood together and fought. His plan from the beginning was to try to get a business to settle out of court so he could get a pay day. They were frivolous and he made up the allegations but he was not held accoutable in any way shape or form.

[RobertNashville]

Surely the double standard doesn't surprise anyone does it?

 

Of course if you are homosexual it's perfectly okay to refuse to do business with someone who doesn't agree with your lifestyle but it should be illegal for anyone to refuse to do business with the homosexual.  Such is the world we now live in.

Edited March 3, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I bet the stylist will sue the govenor now because the sylist lost revenue by refusing the serve the govenor. I seriously doubt the stylist will just let it be. I bet she will find some sort of reason to file a lawsuit against the govenor, the state as well as anyone else she can blame. I would love to see the govenor sue, using the wedding cake case as a precident, the stylist and geta judgement. I say fight fire with fire.

 

With that being said this is what is wrong with the county, everyone suing over stuff they should not be sued over. And those that are suing know that if they loose the court case they will not be held accoutable because they have nothing to loose. Personally I would like to see it where if someone sues and it is determined to be frivolous then the plaintiff should be required to pay financially and if they cannot then they should be charged criminally for fraud then be tossed in jail. Maybe when these "nothing left to loose" types start actually loosing their freedom they might change their attitude.

 

I recently read a story about a guy who had filed dozens of suits against businesses in a shopping mall hoping to get a win in one. They were all thrown out but he could not be held accountable because he nothing yet the businesses he tried to sue were out thousands upon thousands of dollars to mount a defense. He even told the businesses he would settle for less so they would not have to go to court. Glad all those businesses stood together and fought. His plan from the beginning was to try to get a business to settle out of court so he could get a pay day. They were frivolous and he made up the allegations but he was not held accoutable in any way shape or form.

It will again be what's called frivolous.

[TerryW]

I read this thread over and over only to be still confused.  Then I re-read the title.  Oh, I thought the title said Gray, not Gay. 

 

I must need an eye test..... 

[Spiffy]

I think the Gov should sue the hairdresser for "break of verbal contract". She entered in an exclusive contract to do the Gov's hair. Being a public figure the Gov is expected to be presentable and hair is a big part of a woman's appearance. The Gov used only her to fix and cut her hair. I would sue for mental anguish because I'd rather find a new girlfriend that "break up" with the lady who cuts my hair.  Sauce for the goose, even if it never goes to court it would be great for headlines.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

She probably wouldn't get the headlimes, but I like your way of thinking on that. :D

[Garufa]

What is all this "she" you people keep talking about? According to the story the hairdresser's name is Antonio.  :lol:

Edited March 3, 2014 by Garufa

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was referring to the Governor. Ah, I see what you mean, now. We shant stereotype that hairdresser. :D

Edited March 3, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[Garufa]

I was referring to the Governor. Ah, I see what you mean, now. We shant stereotype that hairdresser. :D

 

Too late, you're busted.  Didn't read the article.  :lol:

[mikegideon]

What is all this "she" you people keep talking about? According to the story the hairdresser's name is Antonio.  :lol:

 

Changed it when she got her new pecker.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's gonna cost you about 50 round through that Tokarev. :D

[Ted S.]

When people give a government the power to decide what is fact... Sent from somewhere in the cosmos using magic...and bacon.

[JPS]

What I (kinda) don't understand about this is why people want to reward businesses that disagree with their lifestyle choices by forcing them to do business with them..  UNLESS, of course they just want the ability to sue about it.