Thursday Open Thread [2.23.12]
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) “has lost a hair stylist thanks to her position against gay marriage,” KOB TV reports.
Says Antonio Darden, a popular stylist who runs Antonio’s Hair Studio in Santa Fe: “The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in. 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.”
This should happen more often. Conservatives consequently expect service from those they deny rights to.
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY — PRESIDENT
NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Santorum 35, Romney 27, Gingrich 15, Paul 10
CALIFORNIA (Field Poll): Romney 31, Santorum 25, Paul 16, Gingrich 12
MICHIGAN (EPIC-MRA): Santorum 37, Romney 34, Paul 10, Gingrich 7
OKLAHOMA (Rasmussen): Santorum 43, Gingrich 22, Romney 18, Paul 7
GENERAL ELECTION — PRESIDENT
NATIONAL (Associated Press/GfK): Obama d. Romney (51-43); Obama d. Paul (53-44); Obama d. Santorum (52-43); Obama d. Gingrich (52-42)
NATIONAL (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (46-44); Obama d. Santorum (47-44); Obama d. Gingrich (50-39)
NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Obama d. Santorum (46-43); Obama d. Romney (47-41)
ARIZONA (NBC News/Marist): Romney d. Obama (45-40); Santorum d. Obama (45-42); Paul d. Obama (43-41); Obama d. Gingrich (45-40)
ARIZONA (PPP): Santorum d. Obama (47-46); Obama tied with Romney (47-47); Obama d. Paul (46-42); Obama d. Gingrich (48-44)
MICHIGAN (NBC News/Marist): Obama d. Romney (51-33); Obama d. Paul (53-31); Obama d. Santorum (55-29); Obama d. Gingrich (56-28)
Refusing to do the Governor’s hair? Free market, baby!
Free advertising, it looks to me.
(In response to Liberal Elite — looks like comments are flipping around again.)
Not legal… Imagine if all businesses could let in whom they chose. Wait… we already did that. It was called Jim Crow.
Sure she made a point, but at what cost?
It would be illegal if you refused to serve someone based on their race or religion.
That is not the case here.
a private business can refuse to serve an individual because they are an ass-hat…. see WilliamsVAssHat case in 1879
besides… race, gender, orientation, ethnicity is not a choice. being a hateful banshee is a choice.
Probably not the first person to lose a hairstylist because of that position.
He should have done her hair and chastised her the entire time! 😉
Antonio Darden ? Names are destiny.
I’m w/ Pandora, only that hair would have been REAL DONE!
Oh, if she would have been in my chair, I would have given here a buzz cut. 🙂
Maryland Senate passes Marriage Equality Law! Governor O’Malley will definitely sign this one.
I am from new mexico. Could not stand the democrat candidate for governor, but did not think susan martinez was qualified, so I wrote in. as far as the hair stylist is concerned, perfectly within rights to not offer service to gov. And depending on client mix, might even be good for business. Or not
Hairstylist was within his rights to refuse her service, rethugs always hate when the tables get turned.
Apparently Tigani is singing like a bird.
http://tiny.cc/vk4nt
Whoo hoo! Go Maryland!
Maybe De can move towards full equality now. (not to belittle anyone’s civil union… it’s a marriage as far as everyone is concerned) This also really drives home what a sniveling little (although not really that little at all) shit Chirstie is.
Full equality can be achieved simply by getting government out the marraige business (that is sanctifying a civil union)and leave it to religions to decide how their God views the world. Government’s only job should be to regulate the contractual relationship between two entities (i.e. civil unions). For full equality to exist, the laws should allow a civil union between any two people regardless of their sex. Of course we would then face the question of limits – why just two, why not ten? Still, ones sexual orientation should not be a barrier which should include those of opposite sex. Before someone points out that heteros can choose to marry, brother and sister, brother and brother, and first cousins cannot. Why should they be denied the benefits of a civil union or does the potential of sexual congress have to be present in order to validate a civil union?
I agree Dave. I long ago said that the best solution to all of this is to have the government only issue civil union certificates to all “married couples,” and such certificates could be issued to any two consenting non-related adults, regardless of sexual orientation. With this certificate come all the legal benefits and obligations of what we know as marriage today.
If you want to get married, with all the religious trappings, then you get a church to marry you. Some churches will marry those of the same sex. Some churches don’t. Each church would be free to do whatever their religion dictated.
It is the easiest solution to the problem, but the hardest to implement.
you make an interesting point. If a “marriage” is a religious thing… for lack of a better word, why would liberal/progressives who believe in a thick wall, and a lake, and a guard, etc separating church and state want everyone to have marriage?
Here is my answer. I think, and i hope you’d agree, that this country will never just disavow the term “marriage” Right now we have one party pushing for theocracy and another party too scared of being labeled “secular progressives” to call them out on pushing for a theocracy. It cant happen. Not any time soon. SO now we are left with something that the government offers so some citizens but not others, and the only reasoning anyone has ever been able to come up with is a few words in the Religious text of just 2 faiths. (really one, since it is the Jew-part). Those who claim to be constitutionalists defend this because….. I actually cant think of a reason that isn’t ridiculous.
Here is is plain and simple. Marriage is a legal contract between 2 persons over the age of 18.
To your last question, i hadnt thought of that. can 2 siblings who are confirmed old bachelors(etts) get a civil union because they want someone to have the legal rights and have never found a woman/man they want to make that commitment with? I’m fine with that.
Ditto to DD. And really when you think about–isn’t the marriage license really issued by the state anyway, and you just have the officiator sign it? Maybe it’s different state by state and the years changed things, but I think I just remember bringing the paper w/ me the officiator signed along w/ those 2 witnesses.