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.

We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.


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

  1. LANE says:

    First of all, hairdressers are usually independent contractors and can refuse service to anyone. Second of all he is not refusing service to just anyone who opposes gay marriage, she is a public figure who has power in the decisions that are made about same sex marriage.

  2. MisterNegan says:

    I throw up on this whole website. Such misinformed idiots. Believe everything the establishment media feeds you.

  3. Jeff Schwartz says:

    When you clearly don’t understand logic (that view discrimination is distinct in character and in the law from other forms of discrimination) or the underlying law, you don’t speak with any kind of persuasive authority. You don’t like it when it happens to you, or someone like you, so you make up a “logical” justification for reviling it. But you happily live your life in apathetic bliss when it is happening to someone with whom you can’t possibly identify, nor have any desire to. Civil rights laws exist to CORRECT the discriminatory, oppressive treatment of certain members of society based on (mainly) immutable characteristics (i.e., race, gender, sexual identity, etc.) They have, by action of ignorance in their fellow citizens, FEWER rights than the so-called “majority.” But the majority has no right to steal natural rights from the minority. The Constitution plainly forbids that to happen by any action of law, and various statutes aim to correct it when it does happen, such correction having the force of law. If you don’t like LAWS that punish discrimination, encourage a CULTURE of non-discrimination that make such laws obsolete. If you can’t do that, live with the consequences.

  4. Lizta says:

    Then its should be OK for the gay hairdresser to be also refused something. Tit for tat. Anyone who says otherwise is playing with words. And no gays are not the oppressed kind in America. They have powerful lobbies and connections. Just they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. The AMERICAN point of view. Seriously and they say they believe in diversity. BULLSHIT

  5. Patrick Hughes says:

    Please tell me how it’s hypocrisy when only one side is imposing their will upon the other? Anyone who thinks having certain types of people married in a shared environment is an imposition on them has a woefully oversized ego and obviously has some insecurity problems, considering the reality of the situation for those on the other side.

  6. Unlicensed Dremel says:

    But that’s the point – she just shrugged it off an went to someone else – just exactly as the gays should do when one of the bigots doesn’t want them as a customer – all fine and dandy. I don’t agree with the governor’s view either, and don’t have any problem whatsoever with the stylist refusing her money. I also have zero problem with a bigot refusing to take a gay person’s money. Freedom is meaningless without the basic freedom to refuse clientele whom you despise. Unless you’re a common carrier, of course, and the class is a protected class. Here, neither of those things is present, let alone both – the Gov’s membership in class of people (those who are anti-gay-marriage bigots) is not a protected one (not race, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or religion), and the service is not a common carrier – there are many substitutes….. Just like when a gay is denied a wedding cake. Don’t sue over it – just make a lot of hay/noise in the news (great and good), and rejoice in the fact they they let you know so that you could give your money to someone else who DOES want your business and not them!

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles