Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Woman's Hair

[keeperrox]

Edit: Since this in happening in Canada, a lot of this really doesn't matter, but if this were to happen in the US, the following would be my opinion...

I will admit total ignorance on this particular subject. That said, whether a business has a "right" to refuse service isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. As I said, I am ignorant on this particular subject, but wouldn't the Federal Civil Rights Act prevent a business from such discrimination?

I'm almost certain (as in 99.9% sure, but don't have a citation) that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government doesn't have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector in some cases.

Obviously I feel strongly that a business should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, ect.

I feel strongly about this, too, but that doesn't mean I think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, or religion. I just think that if a private entity wants to open a business, they get to decide who they cater to. If they choose to discriminate against a group, then the people in that community should be the ones pushing for a change in policy, not the government.

I still don't understand why she insisted that these particular men cut her hair. Why couldn't she go to a different shop?

Also, what is she trying to do? From the article:

She is asking the tribunal to force Terminal Barber Shop to offer its men’s haircuts to both genders, and suggests in her application that the shop post a sign indicating it serves both men and women.

So she wants the government to step in and force a business to provide a service that it doesn't want to provide? I have a HUGE problem with that. I don't agree with their reasoning behind why they won't provide the service, but I can't support that. No one is forcing her to do business there, but she is forcing them to do business with her. That's not what private businesses are there for, in my opinion.

[BlackHawk]

Eh, he has a right to not violate his own religious beliefs. He's not blaming her that she's a woman, nor is he saying that women should have long hair or whatever. He is saying he refused her service because in his religion he cannot touch a woman not related to him. I see nothing wrong with a private business do that. He opened a barber shop presumably to cut men's hair, as here that is primarily what barbers do.

As much as I hate the idea of people not serving someone, a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone. And having a gender specific service, male or female only, is not wrong. If you are a monopoly and the only person who can do your craft I can see it getting a bit bad... but seriously, there are many places that can cut your hair. It's like if a man were to complain because there are women's only gyms... that's not the only gym in the city. It is a private business that can cater to their specific clientele and if you as a community don't like it, don't go there, even if you can.

[Coconut Flan]

Private businesses used to have the right to refuse service to anyone - decades ago. Some refused to serve blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. That's why we have laws not allowing that kind of thing. Although since barbers typically cut male hair, they could make a case that they are not properly trained to cut women's hair. It seems she was asking for a male style cut though.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out religion vs sex discrimination. I'm curious if she knew it was an all Muslim barbershop and if so, why go there if not just to stir up an issue?

[valsa]

As much as I hate the idea of people not serving someone, a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Except in that part of Canada, they don't have that right.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Except in that part of Canada, they don't have that right.

They don't have that right in any of Canada, as far as I know. We take our rights to not be discriminated against very seriously. I personally like that our laws are like that. A private business DOES have the right, in Canada, to refuse service to anyone for any reason EXCEPT reasons like race, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion...) I'm happy that it's like that, and I can't speak for all Canadians, but I think most are happy with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada's has different laws, but I think it's also a different culture, no matter how similar it may seem. I've never heard of any Canadians clamoring for American style freedom of speech, for example.

I think it's important to recognize that the laws everywhere are not the same, and separate how you feel with what's legal. (Not a specific you, a general you). That's what I'd do in a US case like this. Is it seriously legal in the US to refuse service to someone because of their race, for example? That makes me sad, but then again, I was raised with Canadian sensibilities towards such things, which are different.

[keeperrox]

It blows my mind that someone can walk into a private place of business and demand to be served, with absolutely no regard to the owners and workers of that business. Especially when there are countless other businesses in a very populated city to provide her with the exact same service.

[JeanneD]

Often there are numerous loopholes available to get around religious laws. Would gloves be sufficient to count as "not touching"? I honestly do not know.

[valsa]

It blows my mind that someone can walk into a private place of business and demand to be served, with absolutely no regard to the owners and workers of that business.

If the business serves the public and if the reason that that particular person is not being served is due to a personal characteristic, I don't know what's so mind-blowing about it.

If I go into McDonalds, I should be able to get a hamburger, even if I'm

Now, if I go into McDonalds and start yelling profanity, they have a right to deny me service. Likewise, if I go to McDonalds and want my dry cleaning done, they also have a right to deny me service.

[Deleted03]

I'm not following this.

Are you saying it's wrong to discriminate against a person because of their skin color, but it's not as bad to discriminate because of gender?

I don't get the whole "I don't think it's either a cause to provoke needlessly people or communities either" line of reasoning. She isn't provoking anyone. She was discriminated against!

I'm saying both discriminations are wrong. I did not say it well, sorry.

I don't know if she knew about it, but I don't think I would have gone in there in the first place if I had known they were Muslims. Like going there just to get a reaction out of them is IMO stupid.

You have to serve all customers and I agree with that. You can't just pick and choose on things like gender, race, faith...

[Boogalou]

Since this case is in Toronto, the relevant law in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... _e.htm#BK2

Here are some excerpts:

A barbershop is offering a service to the public, and on the face of it, there was clearly discrimination on the basis of sex.

Theoretically, if you set up a Muslim haircutting organization, you could restrict membership or participation. In this case, though, it was a barbershop offering services to the general public.

I think it would be hard to define hair cutting as "public decency".

I do wonder about businesses that cater specifically to women. I can see a legitimate niche for these - for example, I miss a girls sports camp that my oldest daughter used to attend, because few girls enroll in the co-ed sports camps.

Thanks for bringing this up. Honestly, it's sometimes hard to separate out what is American and Canadian law. I think I watch too much TV.

[Inky]

I'm going to watch this one - I'm not sure exactly where I stand on it. On the one hand, I hate when women are refused anything just because they are women (and I hate even MORE that salons charge more for giving the exact same haircut to a woman, as a man, and dry cleaning establishments do the same). But of course, it is a matter of religion for this man, and the other men who work in his establishment. My suggestion would be that his next hire, be a non-muslim man, just in case this should happen again.

I understand why she's doing this. The Human Rights Code needs to be clear and understandable. In this case, what happens when one right meets another? I'd hate to be the judge on this one.

[valsa]

But of course, it is a matter of religion for this man, and the other men who work in his establishment.

I'm wondering what Canadian law says about employee protections. Does it protect a person's right to practice their religion in all situations or just reasonable situations?

For instance, would a Christian pharmacist who is "pro-life" be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control or the morning after pill?

If the place you work provides hair cuts for the public, I don't think it's reasonable to say your religion prevents you from touching half the potential customers of your employer.

[keeperrox]

If the business serves the public and if the reason that that particular person is not being served is due to a personal characteristic, I don't know what's so mind-blowing about it.

If I go into McDonalds, I should be able to get a hamburger, even if I'm

Now, if I go into McDonalds and start yelling profanity, they have a right to deny me service. Likewise, if I go to McDonalds and want my dry cleaning done, they also have a right to deny me service.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. McDonalds' service is serving hamburgers to the general public. They hire people who are willing to do that. This business's service is providing men's haircuts and they hired people who would do that, too.

If she went to a Kosher butcher, would she demand that they butcher a pig that she brings in and take them to court if they refuse?

[valsa]

This business's service is providing men's haircuts and they hired people who would do that, too.

Apparently not, as this woman wanted a man's haircut and couldn't get one.

If she went to a Kosher butcher, would she demand that they butcher a pig that she brings in and take them to court if they refuse?

Doesn't kosher refer to what is consumed? Why would a kosher butcher shop have a problem butchering a pig in a non-kosher way (unless they are unequipped to do so) when they aren't the ones who will be eating it?

[Minerva]

Some religions have specific rules about which interactions can happen between people of which genders. Society has rules about not service providers not discriminating against people on the basis of gender. I think there are always ways of making the two compatible. For instance, having at least one woman working in places where you have to check ID at any given time in case a woman comes in wearing a Niqab. (Because most employers have to hire both genders equally, that shouldn't be a problem.)

I think the manager of the barber shop should have to accommodate Muslim employees as well as any female customers, i.e. having some staff, Muslim or non-Muslim, who are willing to cut women's hair. Most managers work around employees' religious requirements without too much added hassle - my manager, for instance, has the schedule worked out so that the Muslim employees can have their breaks at the required times without it impacting our ability to serve customers. Most managers have to, because this is Canada and Hell would break loose if they didn't.

I think the barber shop hasn't run into this until now because of the strictly gendered world of hair-cutting. It's really unusual for anyone to attempt to transgress these gender expectations, and it's usually met with refusal. She was probably the first woman to walk into that barber shop and ask for a hair cut. And they weren't prepared for that (and reasonably so), and Hell is breaking loose. I expect the blame will be put on the manager, if the court doesn't just fall back on the fact that "barber shop" implies that it is a service offered to men. It would be interesting if they were forced to examine the sexism in the world of hair cuts, but I doubt they will.

That said, I can't help but side-eye the fact that, out of all the men's hair cut only places in Toronto, she picked a Muslim-owned barber shop to sue. Maybe it's a coincidence, but...

ETA 2xx1xy1JD makes a good point about Muslim-oriented barber shops vs. public barber shops.

[Guest Anonymous]

Apparently not, as this woman wanted a man's haircut and couldn't get one.

Doesn't kosher refer to what is consumed? Why would a kosher butcher shop have a problem butchering a pig in a non-kosher way (unless they are unequipped to do so) when they aren't the ones who will be eating it?

I think you would have to kasher everything.

[Sola]

This is one that always gets me right up on my soapbox! :lol:

In my town, woman's haircut = £35 minimum, men's cut = £8. Even though my cut (snip ends off straight hair) has got to be a TON easier to do than that of my fussy teenage son with his Bieber-do.

So good luck to her.

But anyway, the fundy position on this one -

Muslims = wrong because Muslim

Woman wanting short-back-and-sides = wrong, obviously

Canadian authorities = communists therefore wrong

So whatever answer the courts decide = wrong and sign world going to hell in handbasket.

The pisses me off big time. Last time I had my hair done, I went with both my kids. I went from long to short; complete restyle = £25. My son went from long to short, his hair was longer than mine and he went to a short 2 inch long style; so complete restyle = £15. WTF?

It happens at every single unisex hair stylist here. Really pisses me off.

[Minerva]

I think you would have to kasher everything.

I get the feeling a court would rule that advertising themselves as a Kosher butcher shop makes it clear enough that they will not be processing pig products. I also think that a Kosher butcher is a much less complicated situation than this barber shop situation. Not working with a certain product isn't the same thing as refusing to serve a protected group.

[Minerva]

The pisses me off big time. Last time I had my hair done, I went with both my kids. I went from long to short; complete restyle = £25. My son went from long to short, his hair was longer than mine and he went to a short 2 inch long style; so complete restyle = £15. WTF?

It happens at every single unisex hair stylist here. Really pisses me off.

My partner can get his hair cut somewhere nice for less than I pay to get my hair butchered by First Choice. And his haircuts are way more complicated than mine.

[valsa]

I think you would have to kasher everything.

From the context it is clear what you mean Mafia>

I'm assuming that that means, like, make it ritually clean or something like that, correct?

I think an argument could be made that in that case that they are either unequipped to butcher the pig or unable to do so without unreasonable cost to the business. It should also be pointed out that liking pork is not a characteristic equal to gender, race, religion, etc, so I don't think the comparison in apt to begin with.

[keeperrox]

Apparently not, as this woman wanted a man's haircut and couldn't get one.

Okay, so as a matter of semantics, "This business's service is providing men with haircuts and they hired people who would do that, too."

Doesn't kosher refer to what is consumed? Why would a kosher butcher shop have a problem butchering a pig in a non-kosher way (unless they are unequipped to do so) when they aren't the ones who will be eating it?

No, it is against their religion to touch the carcass of a pig. Deuteronomy 14:8 says, "The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."

[Deleted03]

I get the feeling a court would rule that advertising themselves as a Kosher butcher shop makes it clear enough that they will not be processing pig products. I also think that a Kosher butcher is a much less complicated situation than this barber shop situation. Not working with a certain product isn't the same thing as refusing to serve a protected group.

pig is not kosher and they would lose their accreditation. I don't think those Muslim men lose their accreditation if they accept female customers.

[valsa]

Okay, so as a matter of semantics, "This business's service is providing men with haircuts and the hired people who would do that, too."

In Canada, you can't legally be a business who provides just men with haircuts unless you are an institution or organization or you do it on the grounds of "public decency".

No, it is against their religion to touch the carcass of a pig. Deuteronomy 14:8 says, "The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."

Putting aside the fact they should be wearing gloves anyway, as I mentioned above, wanting a pig butchered is not the same as being a woman or black or a Muslim, etc.

[keeperrox]

I still fail to see how her right to get a hair cut, which she could get at a 100+ other locations in Toronto, supersedes the rights of these barbers. How can they be forced to touch her if it goes against their beliefs? How can you force anyone to physically do something they are against?

This is not to say that I agree with their beliefs. I don't. I find them to be ridiculous, actually. But they aren't my beliefs, they're their's. Just as I wouldn't want them to force me to believe what they do, I don't see why they should be forced by the government to abandon them.

Putting aside the fact they should be wearing gloves anyway, as I mentioned above, wanting a pig butchered is not the same as being a woman or black or a Muslim, etc.

And getting a hamburger at McDonalds isn't the same as using the government to force Muslim men to give you a haircut. Every man there that day was Muslim. When they found someone who would provide her with a haircut in their shop, she refused and said that she would continue to battle it out in court. I can't help but wonder about her agenda.

The barbershop suggested a solution to McGregor toward the end of August, offering her a haircut from a barber willing to do so.

“It’s the principle of the matter so I turned down their lawyer’s offer and said, ‘No, I wish to continue with the tribunal,' because this needs to be discussed and now it’s bigger than what occurred with me that one day, in one afternoon,†said McGregor.

What, exactly, needs to be discussed? That she disagrees with their religious views? So do I, but it's not my religion.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Putting aside the fact they should be wearing gloves anyway, as I mentioned above, wanting a pig butchered is not the same as being a woman or black or a Muslim, etc.

Agreed with that. They'd be saying they refuse to serve her because they don't want to butcher a pig, not because she's a women. You are allowed to do that under Canadian law. You can't refuse to serve someone because of their race, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation and I think there are few more. Businesses can refuse to serve someone because they just don't feel like it, the person said something to annoy them or they don't feel comfortable working with a specific material (like a vegetarian dry cleaner refusing to clean fur because it's against their beliefs. So that example is not the same, and it would be legal for the hypothetical butcher to refuse to touch a pig. It is not legal to refuse to serve someone because they're a woman in Canada, and personally I'm happy it's not.

I support the woman in this case, both because it's the law here that you can't refuse to serve someone for being a woman, and because if some business refused to serve me for being a lesbian (and I'm sure plenty would like to if they could), it'd make me feel horrible. I may just be really really Canadian, but I like that I have the right to not be discriminated against for things plenty of people would love to discriminate against others for. I absolutely love our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, and that's part of it.