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!'?