Thursday Open Thread [2.23.12]

February 23rd, 2012 • Related • Filed Under
By Delaware Dem

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)

There Are 20 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by pandora on 23 February 2012 at 12:10 pm:

    Refusing to do the Governor’s hair? Free market, baby!

  2. Comment by cassandra m on 23 February 2012 at 12:16 pm:

    Free advertising, it looks to me.

    (In response to Liberal Elite — looks like comments are flipping around again.)

  3. Comment by Liberal Elite on 23 February 2012 at 12:17 pm:

    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?

  4. Comment by Delaware Dem on 23 February 2012 at 12:24 pm:

    It would be illegal if you refused to serve someone based on their race or religion.

    That is not the case here.

  5. Comment by socialistic ben on 23 February 2012 at 12:26 pm:

    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.

  6. Comment by walt on 23 February 2012 at 12:27 pm:

    Probably not the first person to lose a hairstylist because of that position.

  7. Comment by pandora on 23 February 2012 at 12:30 pm:

    He should have done her hair and chastised her the entire time! ;-)

  8. Comment by Jason330 on 23 February 2012 at 12:41 pm:

    Antonio Darden ? Names are destiny.

  9. Comment by Joanne Christian on 23 February 2012 at 1:06 pm:

    I’m w/ Pandora, only that hair would have been REAL DONE!

  10. Comment by MJ on 23 February 2012 at 1:26 pm:

    Oh, if she would have been in my chair, I would have given here a buzz cut. :-)

  11. Comment by cassandra_m on 23 February 2012 at 8:47 pm:

    Maryland Senate passes Marriage Equality Law! Governor O’Malley will definitely sign this one.

  12. Comment by Rustydils on 24 February 2012 at 12:59 am:

    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

  13. Comment by Flash Cat on 24 February 2012 at 4:59 am:

    Hairstylist was within his rights to refuse her service, rethugs always hate when the tables get turned.

  14. Comment by thenewphil on 24 February 2012 at 6:44 am:

    Apparently Tigani is singing like a bird.

    http://tiny.cc/vk4nt

  15. Comment by pandora on 24 February 2012 at 8:05 am:

    Whoo hoo! Go Maryland!

  16. Comment by socialistic ben on 24 February 2012 at 8:52 am:

    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.

  17. Comment by Dave on 24 February 2012 at 9:15 am:

    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?

  18. Comment by Delaware Dem on 24 February 2012 at 9:21 am:

    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.

  19. Comment by socialistic ben on 24 February 2012 at 9:29 am:

    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.

  20. Comment by Joanne Christian on 24 February 2012 at 11:02 am:

    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.

Switch to our mobile site