Specifically, I don’t think that making policy choices regarding HIV pamphlets equates to “mass murder” any more than engaging in unsafe sex is equatable to suicide.

Never mind the accuracy of the statement (The HIV crisis is still of national importance… but anyone pretending that HIV is a death sentence is ignorant, deliberately inflammatory, and is certainly contributing to the stigmatization of poz people – tone it down, please).

It’s interesting that you mention the KKK. A few years ago when a gay group was declined by a state government for their Adopt-a-Highway program, the KKK filed an amicus brief on behalf of the gay group (the KKK was fighting exactly the same battle, and were later upheld in court). Just a little aside to demonstrate taht regardless of content, rights are rights.

Which is to say that I’m unclear where you’re going here – are you suggesting that a black-owned business should be allowed to refuse service to kkk members?

I’m also pretty sure that the governor is well within her legal rights to execute the office as she deems fit, until notified by the legislature or a court that she is acting illegally. That’s what’s cut and dry. How you and I feel about it can certainly be what drives the vote at the polls, but for now, she’s not a “Grade A” anything, except perhaps some names that don’t belong here. But predator? That has some pretty specific connotations.

I think we can disagree with someone – powerfully, without calling them a murderer and a predator based on their policy positions, don’t you?

I see this similar with the governor and the hairdresser. Her denial of equal rights and pulling educational pamphlets on HIV makes her in a sense, an accessory to mass murder.

Even if the government stepped in and said all business owners of all public businesses, even those considered “private”, must serve all customers, legally there is always a good case to not serve some, as is here with this example.

I think in this case, if it came to legal, the governor would be foolish to challenge the hairdresser even if he broke a cust accom law. She would only shine the light on her intense guilt and homophobia, which for our side would be a win. In such cases, as we have seen in gay marriage state court cases and in the case of the photographer mentioned in this article, “religious beliefs” disappear like bad wind in front of judges that rule on rational basis.

I believe the same would mirror here if anything similar were to go the distance.

I’m thinking that irregardless of what the law may or may not say about customer service, if you have been harmed you have a right to protect or not protect your personal space from any and all predatory intruders. It’s a personal choice but I do believe the law would back such ideology. The gov is a Class A predator, the hair dresser is her victim. It would seem pretty cut and dry on a legal basis, but then, I’m no lawyer.

Priya, from what I can see, you have been courteous to others here and have not put anybody “down”. It seems you and Six are pretty polarized in your opinions but, this is always a good venue to work out power issues, if we choose to stay in the game and ride the wave of self examination. God knows this culture war has brought up every demon I didn’t know I had. It’s really easy to get rageful and angry at others, which you have not done as far as I can tell. You seem rigid in your views but not attackful as Six implies.

It’s cool you were open to looking at other angles of this gov/Hdresser situation. A tape measure is more flexible with it’s potential angles and uses than a straight edge ruler, though both have their preferred applications.

You left off a zero, maybe even two

The extent to which king/emperor/lord/governor/president/citycouncil/priest/shaman/laird can control the way I operate my business/milk my cow/skin my buffalo/raise my kids/build my wall/argue with my neighbor/play my bagpipes has always been a struggle. Mostly, I’m guessing that it varies based on the extent to which the serf/vassal/peasant/underlord/citizen/burgher/countryman feels that the big guy is protecting him from threat and looking out for his needs.

I think the point distinguishing between public accommodation is a critical one, and it comes to the root of the discussion here. Is there a lawyer in the house !!!??

Yes, Priya, it’s true that the government enforces a number of regulations on private business… but we have one of the two major parties in an election year right now making this point the single largest plank in their platform: lower regulation. Or no regulation. Depends on who you ask.

I’m not saying I agree with it — it’s absolutist and unreasonable. I am saying it’s a got enough people who do agree with it that Ron Paul remains a viable candidate this late into the primary calendar. Because it’s got a substantial minority of people who believe it, and because it’s a pretty absolutist position, we can use it as a “bookend” on one side of the argument, and that’s kind of where I was going… to lay out the boundaries of the discussion and figure out what makes sense within those boundaries.

The other end is to say that the government can meddle with every aspect of a business, and to take away the rights of businessowners to determine whom they wish to service, 100%. I can’t countenance this notion either.

We’re all trying to figure out how to split the difference in a way that makes sense in the real world. The good news is that governments have been trying to figure this out for the past 40 years, so we’re not alone.

Neither do I.

Sonmeone denying me a business service does not violate my rights IMHO. I don’t happen to think other people are my slaves to order about at will.