A gay hairdresser refuses service to the governor. In light of recent cases involving Christian business owners refusing service to same-sex couples, you’re likely to see this two-year old story popping up again.
People are already asking why “no one”  is covering the story of a gay hairdresser refusing service to the governor based on her stand against same-sex marriage.
The outrage is based on the accusation of a double standard: if cases of Christian business owners denying service to same-sex couples who wish to get married are being covered, why aren’t a case of reverse discrimination making headlines right now?
The answer for the right now part is simple: this happened in 2012. Not exactly breaking news, is it?
Regardless of the date (or year) of occurrence, it is discrimination. And I’m frankly more than disappointed by some of my conservative friends who are so willing to laugh it off, suggesting that New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez did the logical, “common sense”  thing: she simply found a different hairdresser who was willing to serve her. The reason they laugh it off should be obvious: they’re trying to establish it as precedent so they can then justify their argument that a Christian business owner should be able to refuse service, on religious grounds, to a same-sex couple.
But it should be common sense that if they justify a business owner using his religion as a reason to discriminate against a customer, they are simultaneously advocating that they should be able to be discriminated against by a business owner who doesn’t agree with their religious views, too.
You can’t have it both ways.
Discrimination is either right or wrong.
And if religious freedom is a right granted in the Constitution, religious-based discrimination ought to be wrong, too.
Complain all you like about how “unfair” it is for people for people to be, by your estimation, unconcerned about a gay person discriminating against a straight person on the issue of homosexuality. But at least be honest enough to acknowledge that if you’re going to complain that a double standard exists, you are essentially saying that it should be one way or the other.
It is then your responsibility in the dialog you’ve begun to then advocate which single way you believe things should go.
To do otherwise is to perpetuate the same double standard of which you complain. A waste of everyone’s time. And your own.