Susana Martinez, the Latina Republican governor of New Mexico, needed a new do. Her stylist, a gay man upset by her support of laws against same-sex marriage, refused her service. Is he an activist? Or is he simply as intolerant as she?
This was the conundrum posed by a talk-radio host who subscribed affirmatively to the latter proposition.
Let’s break it down by asking if there is any difference between a hairdresser who won’t service a conservative customer, and an apartment owner who won’t rent to gays? The latter scenario is clearly unlawful in California, while the former is an arguable legal matter.
In our gut, we believe that there are more fundamental differences than those spelled out in statute. But LGBT causes have lost arguments about fundamental, yes even inalienable, rights and freedoms frequently enough to cause us to dig deeper than the instinctual conclusion.
Drilling down to the first deeper level, we find our first basic difference: the distinction between a position and a person. The governor formed her stance on same-sex marriage. She can change it as easily as her hair color. And she could change it back again. LGBTs don’t have that option – we are born this way. For those who might try to cover it up, the dye never quite takes.
To a certain extent, then, going uncoifed is a consequence of the governor’s choice, and different than treating someone differently based on her or his very nature.
Unfortunately, that only gets us so far. Our apartment owner could simply say he has no problems with gays or lesbians per se, but he doesn’t rent to LGBT rights progressives. Suddenly his actions have the protection of a “consequence of choice”, but the effect on the LGBT community is little different, with the exception of GOProud members, who may have found a new home.
In California, there would be a legal difference, as LGBT people are a protected class, and Gov. Martinez is not. In too many states, unfortunately, the apartment owner’s practice isn’t only acceptable to talk-radio hosts; it’s acceptable under the law. So we can’t rely on legalities to universally distinguish the actions of the stylist versus the governor.
Could the difference lie in the product or service? Most people would consider housing closer to a basic need than a particular hair stylist, so maybe the latter shouldn’t have the same rules.
Unfortunately, “victory” by way of the “basic need” argument is a booby-trap. “Let’s say you’re right,” a rightwing talk-show host might say. “Housing is too important – can’t discriminate there; that means there are instances when I can treat gays and lesbians differently!”
The same applies to the idea that different rules apply to the governor because she is a public figure. Her former stylist has certainly gained notoriety, so can he be treated differently now? When this news cycle is over, is he back to being a private citizen? If the governor steps down, does he have to do her hair then?
The stylist was likely well within the law to “reserve the right to refuse service” to the governor; it brought attention to her views. But actions like his are ready fodder for our opponents to use against arguments for equality. By the time his story becomes a talking point against same-sex marriage, and it will, he will have become the “gay stylist who didn’t respect the governor’s right to free speech but says he has the right to redefine marriage.” It’s not accurate, but the explanation is too long for a sound bite world, and in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.