Hey, wait a minute! Gay hairdresser refuses to cut NM governor’s hair and that’s okay?

susan Martinez

So, it was okay two years ago for a gay hairdresser to refuse service to the governor of New Mexico for her views on traditional marriage, but now it’s illegal for a business owner to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on religious beliefs. The following story has resurfaced just to highlight the hypocrisy.

A strange thing recently happened. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has to shop around for a new hairdresser because the one she used the last three times is gay and doesn’t agree with the governor’s view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Her stylist of late, Antonio Darden, confirmed that that’s it — he won’t cut the governor’s hair as long as she holds her traditional views on marriage, according to the New York Daily News.

“The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in,” he told KOB-TV. “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.”

Darden was described by the Daily News as a popular Santa Fe hairstylist who has been with his gay partner for 15 years.

“It’s just equality, dignity for everyone,” he said. “Everybody should be allowed the right to be together.”

Wait a minute and let’s back up here a moment. State courts recently held that bakers and photographers have to accommodate gay and lesbian weddings, even if doing so violates their personal religious beliefs.

Obamas set new record for vacation travel expenses; stonewalled documents finally released

The court’s reasoning in a nutshell in each of these cases is that a business is supposed to serve the public. Therefore, it cannot discriminate any segment of the public by refusing service.

Yet that’s precisely what Martinez’s former hairdresser did — he refused service because of the governor’s views.

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh addressed the issue Monday, and brought up Arizona’s attempt to allow businesses to discriminate rather than violate their religious beliefs. He put a slightly different twist on it, though.

“Now, imagine if she, already opposed to gay marriage, finds out her hairdresser is gay and refuses, can you imagine the absolute hell that would break out over that?” he said. “If this were in Arizona, the way this would work out is that the gay couple would walk out of the bakery when they learned that the baker would not bake ‘em a cake, instead of what happened there.  But it’s perfectly fine for this guy to refuse to continue doing her hair because she’s obviously a bigot and a homophobe, and all that.”

However one chooses to look at it, the result’s the same. The Santa Fe hairdresser, who has a public business, refuses to serve one segment of the public because of his personal views. That’s discriminatory, and he should be sued.

Or better yet, if a business owner holds an opinion — especially one based on religious belief — so near and dear to his heart that he finds it difficult to serve a particular segment of the public, the courts shouldn’t force him to. To do so results in hurt feelings, and bad hair cuts.

Editor’s note: Please note that the original story was published in February 2012.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
From Around The Web
About Michael Dorstewitz

Mike has been with BizPac Review almost from the beginning. Follow him on Twitter at @MikeBPR.

  • BCS Blues

    That is what liberalism is all about. Do as I say not as I do!

    • Allen Wingfield

      exactly

    • go4it

      Submit …………

    • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

      Not at all. There is a huge difference between a business owner refusing to provide service to a class of people because of who they are, and a business owner refusing to provide service to a specific public official because they are using their power to support discrimination against them. If course, since you are a conservative, I expect such logic to be too complicated for you to understand.

      • Timothy53

        How odd it is. You win the argument. Your view of the rules are the ones that society is expected to follow. My views are wrong, my rules are not allowed. Hooray for your side. And your response is to apply my rules to me.

        See also: Senator Robert Packwood was run out of office for pretty much what Clinton did, without lying to a judge, by the same people who defended Clinton. In the Packwood case they established the groping the help was not alright. But in the Clinton case it was just “about the sex and not anyone’s business.” The only difference was the party of the scum.

        I can’t refuse service to a Black customer because he is Black. That is the often used comparison. But according to your logic, I can refuse service if he supports President Obama.

        • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

          No, the argument would be I can’t refuse service to a customer for being black, but I could refuse service to Clarance Thomas because he is a public servant who supports homophobia, or you could refuse service to Obama because you disagree with how he has governed as president. There is a huge difference between refusing service to a class of people for who they are, and doing so to specific politicians. I believe it is even covered in the Constitution under petitioning government officials for the redress of grievances.

          • The Ronster

            Under your premise…If a proprietor refuses service gay individuals because they run their business according to their personal beliefs and values and “their 1st Amendment rights as people of faith” they can be prosecuted for their religious beliefs. But if a business owner refuses service to an opponent because they believe in traditional marriage based on their religious beliefs that’s not that’s not discrimination? You assess two similar situations, based on personal beliefs and religious values differently and attempt to hide under the guise of “politics”. How hypocritical. Comparing “black” to a sexual preference is trite.

      • The Ronster

        So…What you’re saying is that it’s okay to discriminate based on someone’s religious beliefs? There are many religions holding similar views.

        • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

          No, what I said is that it is OK to refuse service to politicians who support discrimination against a group you belong to. Now, if you want to allow people to discriminate against people because their religion tells them they should, then I think it should be OK for others to discriminate against them for their religion-based bigotry.

          Personally, I’d rather see no discrimination. Still, as long as there are people trying to discriminate against others for any reason, then discrimination against such bigots should be an allowed remedy.

          • The Ronster

            So…Let’s say a Senator is a customer. The person providing a service refuses that service because they do not agree with that person because of their Orthodox Jewish or Muslim beliefs….and that is not discrimination? That is not bias? That is not bigotry? That’s exactly how it pans out no matter which way you slice or dice it…

          • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

            If they are solely refusing service based on the person’s beliefs, that would be discrimination. If, however, they were refusing service because that legislature acted on those beliefs in doing their job, especially if in doing so the directly attached the service provider, they are completely justified to refuse service. I suppose you would call it discrimination if a black-owned business refused service to a Klan official.

          • The Ronster

            Orthodox Jews and Muslims oppose the homosexual lifestyle…as do Orthodox Christian sects. It is written in the texts they follow. If they are denied service for what they believe then that is discrimination…

          • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

            The part you are missing here is the difference between holding a belief, acting on a belief, and acting on that belief to the detriment of others. The hairdresser refused service because the politician acted to allow people to act in ways that would harm the hairdresser. He refused service based on the actions of the person, not their belief. If I owned a restaurant, and a bunch of Orthodox Jews came in and started harassing customers that were eating pork, yeah, I’d refuse them service, and kick them out. Their belief do not give them a right to harass other customers. I’d do the same for a Catholic harassing customers for eating meat on Fridays.

          • The Ronster

            Under your premise…If a proprietor refuses service to gay individuals because they run their business according to their personal beliefs and values and “their 1st Amendment rights as people of faith” they can be prosecuted for their religious beliefs. But if a business owner refuses service to an opponent because they believe in traditional marriage based on their religious beliefs that’s not that’s not discrimination? You assess two similar situations, based on personal beliefs and religious values differently and attempt to hide under the guise of “politics”. How hypocritical.

          • Subcomandante Goatz

            No! I have never said that, and either actually read what I wrote, or quit intentionally lying. The only context in which I have said that the LGBT community should be able to discriminate against Christians for their beliefs regarding the LGBT community is if those same Christians are allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community because of their beliefs. That is because I believe in equality. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be able to discriminate against a group of people because of who they are, or what they believe. The only exceptions to that are public figures, especially politicians. Yes, I most certainly believe that all citizens have a right to refuse non-essential services to politicians who actively pursue policies that are injurious to the person providing the service.

            It is not a freedom of speech or freedom of religion issue, but part of the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The hair stylist is not just expressing his opinion, or exercising his beliefs, he is attempting to directly motivate a government official to change how she governs. Guess what, if your homophobic baker wants to refuse service to a government official who can effect the policy for supporting LGBT rights, I’d argue they have a right to do so.

      • Unlicensed Dremel

        Well, you’re right that there is indeed a distinction, that being immutability (being gay is immutable; having X or Y political view is not immutable); However, in this case that is a distinction without any real difference. So not a huge difference – not really any difference at all. Neither are in protected classes (neither being gay nor having an anti-gay marriage political viewpoint are protected classes, nor should they be), and similarly, neither are common carriers for which there is no substitute (many hairstylist substitutes in this case, and many other cake-bakers in the gay lawsuit case). So the result here is as it should be – fine and dandy, the bigot can go to a different stylist – just exactly like it should be with the gays – fine and dandy; I’ll use a different cake-baker who DOES want my money rather than a bigoted cake-baker. Suing is not the answer. Make a LOT of hay about it in the news, sure – out those bigots bigtime! – but it shouldn’t be actionable – they should be run out of court on a rail.

        • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

          No, the distinction is that punishing an elected official for actions you don’t agree with is different from discriminating against a private citizen because you don’t agree with who they are.

      • Mike Ritchie

        Liberals simply do not see their own hypocrisy, plain and simple.

        • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

          We aren’t hypocrites, because we are always right.

    • Rachel Morgan

      This one hairdresser does not represent liberalism. There was no lawsuit in this case where it was decided that this was OK. Other business owners have refused service to politicians on both sides of the aisle. http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/radford-business-owner-declines-request-from-joe-bidens-entourage-to-stop-in-store/23550838

  • Rob

    Well, this is interesting . . . seem it’s, “Do as I say, not as I do” for this individual. Can you say double standard? Simply amazing . . .

    • Jeff Schwartz

      Just because you don’t understand the difference, or don’t want to, doesn’t make the 2 circumstances comparable. On one hand, there are LAWS that protect certain historically oppressed groups from discriminatory conduct by public businesses and by State action. The laws revolve on mostly immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) but also extend to the protections of freedom of religion embodied in the 1st Amendment. We have all seen the equal opportunity language in business contracts. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS DO NOT PROTECT PEOPLE FOR THEIR POLITICS. So white people who are discriminated against in public businesses or by State action BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE are protected just as are people of color. Heterosexuals who are discriminated against BECAUSE THEY ARE HETEROSEXUALS, are equally protected by such laws as protect LGBT. And Christians who are discriminated against in public businesses or by State action BECAUSE OF THEIR CHRISTIANITY are protected. But, exercising a right does not excuse violating someone else’s right, and normally, they are not mutually exclusive. A business owner that PERSONALLY objects to serving gays or latinos or women can still delegate or outsource the service to another individual in their employ and keep their hands “clean” so to speak. No civil right is guaranteed without reasonable limitation, and compliance with the law can be accomplished in virtually every situation without one’s own personal liberty being sacrificed. If a person’s religious belief is that people of other faiths are infidels and should be put to death, and you want to start down the road of “protecting religious freedom,” would you advocate the suspension of laws against murder?

      • Rob

        Really?

  • EliseR

    Really Michael, you are describing the hair stylist as a “little gay hairdresser”?

    • JHLIII

      Evidently. That’s what he is.

      • EliseR

        Why didn’t he describe the Gov. as the “little straight Gov.?” How did Michael know he is “little?”

        • JHLIII

          Why are you here defending a hypocritical double-standard?

          Oh, wait…

          • EliseR

            Where did I defend the hair stylist refusing service? I pointed out Michael’s offensive labeling of the hair stylist.

          • Allen Wingfield

            EliseR are u a sergeant in the PC police? Here is the deal, writer does not support homosexuality and thinks it is wrong, and he is right by the way. Homosexuals are like any other sexual perversion to include bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and any number of others. Their choice by the way, but do not require the rest of us to agree there is nothing wrong with it.

          • EliseR

            Michael is just “stirring the pot” by calling a gay person an offensive name, so you will all rally around him with your hate. He has the right to say what he wants, but I have the right to call him out on it.

          • David Kerr

            Paid TROLL

          • EliseR

            Prove it!

          • Patti_Mi

            And you are stirring the pot by protecting and supporting homosexuals.

          • linreis

            what offensive ‘name’ was the gay person called? you are one screwed up person…today, yesterday and always. If you respected the fact that any one had rights besides yourself, you would have shut up in the first place…you continue to be a person who instigates hate, but then points your fickle finger at everyone else.

          • Eric

            YOU are stiring the pot, Troll!

          • beeta46

            she is a liberal troll…

          • EliseR

            As usual, you have nothing to add to the conversation, so you just want to call people names. How’s your website, Judith? Did you find a better designer yet?

          • Jeff Schwartz

            Try walking a mile in the shoes of people who are subjugated by your kind of ignorance and I suspect you will be singing a different tune. You can’t even handle it when ONE gay hairdresser refuses to do the hair of a homophobic Governor pushing discriminatory policies that HARM the rights of the hairdresser. The author of the article is entitled to his opinions, as are you and I and everyone else here. But you are NOT entitled to your own facts. There is no objective basis to support your claims about homosexuality. Maybe it’s your religious doctrine, or your upbringing, or the fact that “they” make you “uncomfortable.” (THEY aren’t doing anything to you, by the way — you feel uncomfortable because of who YOU are, and that IS a choice.)

          • David Kerr

            Offensive is as offensive does TROLL.

          • beeta46

            I WASN’T OFFENDED… MAYBE HE IS LITTLE..

          • neo rambo

            it looked like just the facts and you are overlooking the real problem that the gays have said we cant refuse them service but they can refuse service they should be taken to court and made to pay like the cake baker

          • Eric

            Just as YOU have nothing to add to the conversation, hater!

          • neo rambo

            why do hate on common sense? you guys need to get a life and leave us alone

          • neo rambo

            the only thing i hate is stupid people with nothing to say like you

          • Nancy Englert-Melecosky

            lmaoooooooooooo EXACTLY Jill !!!!!!!

        • Tanya Booth

          hey eliser…..you’re back as usual spouting your crap….why don’t you put a pic up so we can know who you really are…after all you think you’re correct so put up or shut up….you are so very ignorant

    • beeta46

      HAVE YOU SEEN HIM?

      • EliseR

        Yes. He appears to be of average size.

    • Ike Spike

      Elise,

      Please CITE the sentence in the article where the author used the term “little gay hair dresser”.
      I have read this article multiple times and I can’t seem to find that statement.

      I just want to make sure I am not BLIND!!!

      • EliseR

        “Yet that’s precisely what Martinez’s little gay hairdresser is doing — refusing service because of the governor’s views.”

        Looks like you need a visit to the eye doctor… or some reading comprehension lessons.

        • EliseR

          Well, what do you know, Michael edited THAT comment out too, and changed the text to read, “Yet that’s precisely what Martinez’s former hairdresser did — he refused service because of the governor’s views.” They didn’t bother to mention they were changing the article based on offensive language though.

          • Ike Spike

            SURE!!

            Its amazing how all of your claims have been “conveniently” edited out!!

            Kind a funny if you ask me.

            Or kind of fishy instead!!

          • EliseR

            Then why did so many other people comment on the same claims? And why did the author include a statement that he “updated” the article? It looks like the folks at BizPac AGREED with my comments and made changes.

          • Ike Spike

            The only other comments I saw about those 2 things were from others commenting against you for your comments.

            As for why they added the update about it being a 2 year old story, wouldn’t it make more sense to also add a note that the article had been edited to reflect the correct time for the original story?? and not just a blurb about the story being from 2 years ago??

            You would think that if “Bizpac agreed with you” then they would have added some statement to the fact that the article was edited, and not just the blurb about the story being from 2 years ago. There would be NO reason to edit the story to add that update, soooo good question as to why!!!

          • Anthony

            Well, you really are an idiot. I made it easy and did a ctrl+f search. YOU are the ONLY one that seems to have seen the “little gay hairdresser” part and YOU again are the ONLY one that commented on it. So many other people comment on it? Again, you are the only one. Liberal retards. And the update pertained to when the article was originally published. Go back to being dumb, it’s what you do best.

        • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

          Since when has reading comprehension been a conservative value? That’s an elitist liberal concept. Real American’s don’t think for themselves, they let Rush and Faux News do it for them.

    • neo rambo

      and the problem?

    • Eric

      ElsieR the troll is back.

    • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

      The part I think is so funny is that these same people who say how dare a gay hairdresser refuse service to a politician who is actively trying to take his civil liberties away, are the same people who would applaud a business for refusing to serve president Obama because he’s a (only in their warpped minds) liberal. They are fine with discrimination when it is against people and groups they don’t approve of, but dead again’ it when it’s their side on the receiving end.

  • EliseR

    This story is from 2012 — long before any of the lawsuits relating to wedding professionals being sued for discrimination. Martinez can sue for discrimination, and would probably win, just like the gay couple who sued the wedding photographer in NM and won.

    None of this happened “recently,” and Michael claims. Michael is lying.

    • JHLIII

      Define “recently”.

      Really, Elise – you consistently troll these boards, looking for any opening to advance your malignantly liberal p.o.v. Is this the *best* you can do? “Michael is lying”?

      • EliseR

        Two years ago is not recently. Further, this story is irrelevant to the discussion on businesses being sued for discrimination because it happened before those cases. If Martinez wanted to sue for discrimination, she had the right to — just as homosexuals who are refused service have the right to sue. Discrimination is wrong no matter who is engaging in it. No court said it was OK for the hair stylist to refuse service to the Gov. In actual “recent” news, a priest refused last rites to a gay man and was protected by his “religious freedom” — just disgusting.

        Michael knows the story is old and is purposely trying to mislead readers. One of the basic rules of journalism is to tell readers “who, what, where, WHEN, and how” a story happened.

        • Allen Wingfield

          So Elise we should sue you because you are not agreeing with the story line. Here is an option move on, don’t read it, change the channel. Why do you feel the need to make everyone believe as you do?

          • EliseR

            Why would you sue anyone for simply stating an opinion? We are talking about people suing for discrimination. How am I discriminating against anyone by stating an opinion? You are making no sense. If you don’t like my comments, why don’t you take your own advice and just move on?

          • beeta46

            Go back and read the article… He refused service .

          • EliseR

            Go back and read the comments that you are responding to. Allen claimed he should sue me for my opinion — that is what I was responding to. Try to keep up before you spout your nonsense.

          • Kenneth Clark

            Your sense of perception is amazing. The very topic of the article is suit based upon opinion. It was the baker’s opinion that he should not be forced to do business with those he disagreed with. It is also the opinion of the hair dresser to not do business with those he disagrees with. So, where is the difference EliseR?

        • MattDunkle

          So you would have a priest VIOLATE his religion. I am sure the priest felt it would be wrong for him to do as the dying man wanted. I don’t believe in last rights, but I would be embarrassed to ask a priest or monk or any other sort of religion authoritative person for some sort of ritual when it was completely contrary to their closely held beliefs/convictions. The don’t offer last rites for those who have been divorced either, so lets not hear that it was ONLY because the guy was gay. It was more likely that he was openly in a state of unrepentant sin, that being the reason last rites could not be given.

          • EliseR

            Many priests offer last rites to homosexuals and divorced people. I have actually witnessed this happening.

          • Franz Buhlmann

            EliseR, you may be right about those priests, but let me ask you a question. What good will it do for those priests to waste their time and energy to try to talk God out of paying those people the wages that they have worked so hard for.

            If God stopped paying us all our wages that he owes us, we would be quick to take him to court. Therefore it is utter foolishness for those homosexuals to attempt to get something other than their wages from God!

        • Kenneth Clark

          Then maybe you should stop engaging in discrimination against all those whom do not agree with you. Oh, and since you are the expert in journalism, maybe a few lessons to all those that cater to Obama would be in order from you. That should keep you busy for the next 20 years then we wouldn’t have to “tolerate” your bigotry.

    • Scott Leger

      bush is still being blamed. 8 yrs later, shaddup allready troll turd.

    • Ike Spike

      UMM ELISE:

      Maybe you should READ the FIRST sentence of the article!!!

      “So, it was okay two years ago for a gay hairdresser to refuse service to the Mayor of New Mexico for her views on traditional marriage”

      U see it does say the story is from 2 years ago1!!

      DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Learn to read before you accuse someone!!

      Oh that’s right, I almost forgot, Your a Liberal, Its OK to just assume and spout accusations without any proof!!!!

      • EliseR

        The post was edited a little while ago. Apparently someone at BizPac is actually holding writers accountable.

        • Ike Spike

          I’m not talking about the update note at the bottom.

          I am talking about the 1st sentence in the article!

          • EliseR

            The update note explains that the article was updated to reflect the fact that the incident happened two years ago. The article originally posted said it happened “recently.”

            Is this really too hard for you to understand?

    • EliseR

      So, the author changed the story to make it clear that the incident happened two years ago. At least someone is being held accountable for accuracy. However, the author still claims that the hair stylist’s actions have been deemed “OK.” Who says the hair stylist has the right to refuse service? The author gives no examples of anyone supporting the hair stylist. While the NM courts recently ruled that a photographer discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to photograph their wedding, this incident was never in the courts.

    • linreis

      and that makes it OK somehow?

    • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

      The governor of NM likely knew the discrimination laws and could have set a precedent by suing the gay hair stylist who refused her service. Being a rational woman she chose not to do that.

    • Eric

      So what?

  • Mark Towe

    Sue him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • John

      But only sue him if you’re not a Christian. “Standing up for your rights” was not what Jesus taught. In fact, he taught just the opposite.

      • MattDunkle

        What Christ taught was, love the sinner, but not the sin. He never taight us to lie down and just take it at someone else’s whim, as you indicate. He wants us to stand for our rights, for what IS right, but not violently. He tells us to not seek vengance – that HE will do when it is appropriate.. He said to turn your check – but I have only 2 of those, so there MUST be an implied limit to the turn-the-cheek business.

        • Kenneth Clark

          70 X 7 is the limit

      • LMW51

        Really? Was he teaching that when he picked up a whip and turned over tables? You might want to do a bit of reading yourself before trying to teach others what Jesus taught.

  • LMW51

    She needs to sue this man. Fight fire with fire. And I DON’T care if it was in 2012 – if the statute of limitations has not expired…file a lawsuit. That is the only way we stop the loss of freedoms in this country – fight fire with fire…like with like.

    • beeta46

      I so agree it is time things are turned around on these people and give them a dose of their own medicine! EVERYTIME ,Everywhere!

    • Kenneth Clark

      Statute of limitations, on most situations such as this, is 12 months from the time it is realized by the victim that they have been discriminated against.

      • LMW51

        State to state it is pretty difficult to determine a statute of limitations; each issue is different. I’m sure thought that the NM Governor could find an attorney to let her know what it is in this case.

    • MLindaMartin

      No. No one should be suing for anything other than true discriminatory practices. The point isn’t that she shold sue, too, but that neither the couple suing the bakery or Martinez’ office should sue. These matters are best settled politely and quietly. There’s infinitely more power in rising above and moving on. Wasting taxpayer money squabbling over them in the courts isn’t the way to go.

    • Rich Kingdon

      Yes! Let’s stop the loss of freedoms! So, gay people can now marry nationwide, because that is one of the freedoms being kept from us!

      In turn, the poor, discriminated-against religions can start paying taxes, because they shouldn’t be treated any better either, right?

  • Dennis Smith

    SO THE HAIR DRESSER REFUSES TO DO THE GOVERNOR’S HAIR, SO WHAT? IF A PERSON OR BUSINESS WILL NOT ACCOMODATE ME-I’LL JUST SAY THANK YOU AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT A “COW PATTY” I ALMOST STEPED IN. JESUS JUST CLEANED THEIR DUST OFF, AND WENT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS gay PERSON WILL NOT BE GAY AND HAPPY AS LITTLE CHILDREN.

  • Guest

    Gays are suing Christians, so we can start suing gays too..even Steven!

    • EliseR

      Yep, if you are being discriminated for being Christian, you can sue. How is a gay person discriminating against you?

      • LMW51

        Eh? Denying service based upon religious or political belief is the exact same thing isn’t it? You are discriminating against someone else for their beliefs.

    • John

      I don’t recall Jesus saying, “So if someone does something bad to you, you can do it back.” In fact, I think it was the opposite.

      • beeta46

        I do believe gays claim to be Christian .. does that law not apply to them ? They can sue in the eyes of God but we can’t… They are hypocritical Christians… Truth is gays are not Christian.. God hates their sin and it separates them from God… They can claim God but he does not know them for they have sinned and it will separate them from him.

        • EliseR

          Did you see how God put that beautiful rainbow over the Scottish parliament building while they were voting to legalize same-sex marriage? That didn’t look like God hating anyone.

          • LMW51

            The rainbow symbolized God’s promise to not destroy the world in the same way as done in the flood. Perhaps that was why he put it over the Scottish Parliament?

      • Kenneth Clark

        Christmas stated we are not to sue our brothers and sisters. This means true Christians should not sue or charge interest (usery) against other true Christians. He expects us to stand firm in what is right. He expects true Christians not to set aside and be trampled upon by those whom call right as wrong.

    • Rich Kingdon

      Sure you can. Just as soon as gays are tax-exempt, and receive all the governmental benefits your churches do.

  • doximom

    As usual, it’s one rule/law for the gays and an entirely different one for everyone else.

    • Rich Kingdon

      Right. And the same, of course, doesn’t hold true for religions.

      So churches have to start paying taxes then, right?

  • Ronnie Madison

    but it is alright to force a bakery owner to make a wedding cake for same sex when they don’t believe in it make this person cut the hair then