No Business for Bigots

[Caitshidhe]

Okay, we've all heard about business-owners--restauranteurs and the like--denying their services to people because they were 'morally opposed' to that person's identity or personal beliefs. Usually for being openly gay. Around here we're quite justifiably appalled at such discrimination, even though it is technically a businessman's right not to provide any non-vital service to someone for whatever reasons they fancy. But what about the reverse of this? What about a business-owner who happens to be a member of a typically maligned group denying someone service because THEY feel morally opposed to that person's views? Does discrimination justify discrimination?

I ask because I just found this article about a man in New Mexico refusing to provide a service to the state's governor--because of her anti-gay views.

Antonio Darden is a middle-aged salon owner and openly homosexual. He has been in a relationship with his partner for the last fifteen years but they are denied the rights given to straight couples. New Mexico's governor, Susana Martinez, has openly stated her anti-gay views and said she believes marriage is between one man and one woman--she was also a client of Darden's until recently, when he responded to a request for an appointment by saying he won't give Martinez his business until she changes her mind about gay marriage.

"I think it's just equality, dignity for everyone," the popular hair stylist said. "I think everybody should be allowed the right to be together. My partner and I have been together for 15 years."

Darden said gay couples do not have the same rights that married couples have, and he is determined to fight that, even if it means losing an important customer.

The rest of the article can be found here.

What do you guys think? Granted it's unquestionably wrong to discriminate against people for things they have no control over--a disability, race, or sexual orientation--but what about denying someone a service based on their beliefs? If this was a case of an atheist or liberal being denied service by a hardcore religious or right-wing businessman we would all be up in arms, but my knee-jerk reaction to Darden is, 'Well done!' Hypocritical, I know. Still, it took a lot of balls to do what he did and technically it's his right to do this.

So, is this a case of, 'AWESOME!' or is this a case of 'DOUCHEBAG!'?

[Art Vandelay]

I think ideally at least non-vital businesses should be allowed to deny service for whatever reason the owner sees fit. However, since there are already laws in place that state it's unacceptable in certain circumstances (namely due to race), in the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, I say that currently they should not be allowed to deny service for personal reasons under any circumstances.

[Yaezakura]

I think there's a clear difference here. The guy isn't denying her service because of what she is, but what she's done. It's not a characteristic about her that is causing him to deny service, but actions she has performed. Actions that cause harm to other human beings.

I don't think anyone, anywhere, would argue that someone should be forced to serve someone who stole from their store or started a fight in it. In fact, such actions are typically met with lifetime bans from any establishment. And while this may be a bit less "personal" in nature, it doesn't change the fact that the governor is actively working to harm this man's life. I see no reason why he should be compelled to serve her.

[ironbite]

You can deny anyone your service for any reason provided it's not for reasons outside of their control.  Things like sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender.  Things like that.

Ironbite-if it's for your thoughts, you can deny all you like.

[Lithp]

Yeah, basically, she brought it on herself. Besides, if she tries to cry hypocrisy now, she'll be smearing that label across her own forehead as well.

[Caitshidhe]

I suppose it is rather more like refusing service to someone on the grounds of being a Neo Nazi or something--in the end refusing someone service for being, say, an atheist (a personal belief) is wrong because being an atheist is harmless, whereas being a Neo Nazi or Governor Martinez is hatemongering.

[MaybeNever]

The main point I see here is that the governor's being given a refusal of services because of some specific position that she personally has taken in her role as a public servant. There's no generalization here that I can see, whether against Christians or fundamentalists or governors or women or even anti-gay individuals; it's directed expressly at one person, based on a somewhat unique situation given her power and decisions in that matter.

Within the narrow confines of this, I'm in support of this guy being free to do so.

[TenfoldMaquette]

My initial reaction was to view it as a touch hypocritical, but upon further thought I concluded that it's the equivalent of a black hairdresser denying service to someone with strong ties to the local Klan.

[Kain]

My initial reaction was to view it as a touch hypocritical, but upon further thought I concluded that it's the equivalent of a black hairdresser denying service to someone with strong ties to the local Klan.

Pretty much this.

[Podkayne]

Makes it easier for the other side to point to an example of christians being descriminated against by the evil gays.

[m52nickerson]

I suppose it is rather more like refusing service to someone on the grounds of being a Neo Nazi or something--in the end refusing someone service for being, say, an atheist (a personal belief) is wrong because being an atheist is harmless, whereas being a Neo Nazi or Governor Martinez is hatemongering.

The problem with this is that a religious business owner might think that being an atheist is harmful.  So if we think it is okay for this hair dresser to refuse service to someone on their beliefs on marriage it has to be okay for a religious business owner to refuse service to an atheist for their beliefs.

Going a step further, that could also mean that all the Christian business owners could refuse to serve Muslims or people with other religious faiths.  That would be quite a mess.

MaybeNever brings up a good point that I pretty much agree with, in this one case it maybe acceptable because the Governor is a public figure, but in more general terms of refusing services to people of different beliefs I think it could cause far more harm then good.

[Yla]

I think there's a clear difference here. The guy isn't denying her service because of what she is, but what she's done. It's not a characteristic about her that is causing him to deny service, but actions she has performed. Actions that cause harm to other human beings.

You can deny anyone your service for any reason provided it's not for reasons outside of their control.  Things like sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender.  Things like that.

Ironbite-if it's for your thoughts, you can deny all you like.

What about discrimination based on political leaning? Deny service if you know that guy voted Republican/Democrat, nothing else? Fully in his control, can be considered harmful because support harmful politics. Do you think that would be okay?

[Yaezakura]

I prefer specifics to broad strokes. "Republican" wouldn't be enough for me, because there are actually decent, sane republicans out there. They may even consist of the majority of people who vote republican. They just have the misfortune of sharing a title with the nucking futs ones.

In this case, the guy's singling out a specific platform the governor has been vocal about as the reason for his denial of service.

[Barbarella]

On the surface, it's hypocritical but underneath it, it isn't. It's a political protest. A person can't help it if they are a certain ethnicity, color or sex orientation. However, a person can help it if they are bigoted morons. You give them reason & proof but they insist on being jerks. Screw them! Haters deserve to be called out! This guy's giving them a taste of their own medicine! It's not revenge, mind you, it's a lesson. Bigotry is evil. People should be judged by their CHARACTER ONLY! If someone has the character of a fresh pile of manure then they deserve all the scorn they can get!

[Witchyjoshy]

Some might look at it as hypocrisy.

I like to think of it as argument via karma.