Once again, NOM is playing the persecuted victim to raise money. This time, they're crying over New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez being refused service by a hairdresser over her opposition to marriage equality. In his "Double Standard" blog post (we'll soon see where those are coming from), Brian Brown writes:
Dear Marriage Supporter,
You know all about how relentlessly the Obama administration has been pushing same-sex marriage — most egregiously through Eric Holder's Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Defense.
But the ridiculous double standards these actions are producing are really bothering me. I hope they're bothering you too. I hope that you'll make a donation right now to stand with NOM so we can put a stop to this!
What are some examples of what has my blood boiling?
You may have seen an article that has recently been circulating online about a story from 2012 in New Mexico, where Governor Susana Martinez was given the boot by her hair stylist. Why? As the stylist, Antonio Darden, proclaimed on a local news station, because of her support of marriage! In his own words:
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.
Two things: I personally think that Darden is making a mistake by not serving Martinez. I don't believe that whether or not we want anything to do with each other should come down to political differences. That's a quick way to polarize, divide and deharmonize society.
But more importantly, my question to Brian is: how does it feel? Discrimination doesn't feel so good when it happens to you, does it? And guess what, Brian: SB 1062, which you ardently supported, would have allowed just this type of action had it been signed. It just never occurred to you that you could also be a target under that law, did it? Do you still support it now that you are aware it would also work against you (if you are indeed aware)? If you are feeling wronged, then how do you think Arizona's LGBT community must have felt when it passed?
In the following blockquote, the emphasis is original:
So here's the real question: where was the outrage over this!?
When a professional photographer declined to photograph a same-sex ceremony that violated her religious beliefs, she was accused of discrimination and punished by the government. Yet apparently discriminating against a supporter of true marriage — the Governor of the State, no less — is perfectly fine.
I wonder if Gary King, the state Attorney General, ever considered doing what his counterpart in Washington State is currently doing: prosecuting a floral shop that declined to be involved in a same-sex wedding? Or is discrimination simply a one-way street that doesn't apply to supporters of marriage?
Brian, discrimination doesn't apply here because political beliefs is not a protected class in New Mexico and in most jurisdictions. The reason for this is that unlike, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation or gender, political beliefs is not an immutable characteristic. I believe that the respect we should have for each other, regardless of whether or not we respect each other's beliefs, means that we should serve in our businesses those who we disagree with politically. But that is not a requirement under New Mexico law. That's why neither Susana Martinez, nor Gary King, can do anything.
In the following blockquote, the emphasis is mine:
What did the New Mexico Human Rights Commission do? Did they investigate the denial of service as they did with Elaine Photography when those marriage supporters didn't want to photograph a same-sex ceremony?
Did they move to protect the rights of individuals from discrimination and harassment for simply believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman?
Here's where the hypocrisy lies. They're not hypocritical in that they are aggrieved by the different response to Elane Hugenin and Antonio Darden. They're hypocritical in their different assessments of refusal of service. Following "Elane Photography v. Willock" last August 22,
they reported on a Rasmussen poll finding that 85 percent of respondents supported Hugenin's right to refuse service. The emphasis is mine:
We've heard a lot of stories recently about people of faith being forced to compromise their religious beliefs over same-sex marriage (bakery owners in Oregon, a florist in Washington state, innkeepers in Vermont...). But a new Rasmussen poll shows the vast majority of Americans are highly opposed to business owners being penalized or sued for running their business according to their own personal beliefs and values.
And here's
what they said in response to the passage of SB 1062. Again, the emphasis is mine:
Both the Arizona Senate and House have approved a bill that would prevent business owners from being targeted in lawsuits for declining to participate in same-sex wedding celebrations on the grounds of religious objections.
With the spate of lawsuits we've seen around the country brought against business owners who have declined service for same-sex 'marriage' celebrations, we know how critical legislation of this nature is to protect the First Amendment rights of people of faith.
So if a business owner refuses service to a gay couple, that's "running their business according to their own personal beliefs and values" and "the First Amendment rights of people of faith." But if a business owner refuses service to an opponent of marriage equality, that's "discrimination and harassment." Well, Brian, if someone assesses two similar situations differently over the fact that they like one but not the other, that's hypocrisy.
He later moves onto Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma's allegations against Jim Kittle, the former chair of the Indiana GOP. Recently, Bosma alleged that Kittle had offered him campaign donations if he derailed Indiana's proposed marriage discrimination amendment, HJR3. NOM reacted like this. The emphasis is mine:
We don't know whether a felony had been committed in an attempt to derail the Indiana marriage amendment. What we do know is that serious, credible allegations have been raised, and an independent investigation is in order. That is exactly what we have asked state Attorney General Greg Zoeller to launch.
The situation in Indiana is only the latest example where the rule of law is seemingly sacrificed on the altar of political correctness in the endless quest to push the same-sex 'marriage' agenda. Federal and state officials ignore existing law (including state constitutional amendments) and redefine marriage to suit their own views. Officials are encouraged to openly violate marriage laws. Constitutions and statutes defining marriage are left defenseless in court. Administrative actions are taken without authorization and in defiance of US Supreme Court rulings. In short, every branch of government is being twisted by powerful special interests hell-bent on imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the country. They aren't being checked by the law, the media or even basic moral principles of fairness and justice.
Therefore, they must be checked by us!
In the first paragraph, he says "we don't know whether a felony had been committed". But in the very next paragraph, they say that "the situation in Indiana is only the latest example where the rule of law is seemingly sacrificed" and "officials are openly encouraged to violate marriage laws." He refers to federal and state officials violating marriage laws. He refers to instances of attorneys-general refusing to defend unconstitutional marriage discrimination laws. He refers to all forms of government being used to legalize same-sex marriage.
However, none of those three things have actually happened in Indiana. No state or local officials there have violated the state's marriage laws. Their attorney-general has not ceased defending their ban on marriage equality. And, most importantly, same-sex marriage has not been legalized, either by the legislature or the judiciary.
This leaves me with one question: Brian, what are you referring to when you say "the situation in Indiana is only the latest example where the rule of law is seemingly sacrificed" and "officials are openly encouraged to violate marriage laws"? As none of the three previous situations have occurred in Indiana, it seems that the only thing you could be referring to are the allegations against Jim Kittle. Your language suggests that these allegations are facts and not mere allegations. Yes, you did not explicitly say Jim Kittle broke the law. But you certainly insinuated it. Your language presumes him guilty, and for projecting that language, you should apologize to him. And you should apologize to all LGBT people for defending the discrimination against them while decrying the discrimination against you.