Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Woman's Hair

[Mustang Sally]

You basically said that Americans don't get to have an opinion on Canadian matters, which is full on bullshit. If you think expressing differing opinions is trying to put someone in their place, then that's on you.

I literally did not say that, though I did say it gets tiring at times to hear it. I am sorry if it sounded like I was trying to suppress people's opinions.

[BlackHawk]

I never said you couldn't have your opinion. I did say that it gets tiresome to hear on the internet, repeatedly, Americans opining about things going on in countries with different laws. I never said no one could comment about a country not their own - but I do think people on this thread were talking in a way that seemed to elide the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation with very explicit laws about this kind of thing.

I do actually think gay men should be entitled to safe spaces, but as I said in my original comment, I am not sure if Curves here is women-only, nor do I know how it interacts with our laws.

I am not feeling good about this conversation and I am not engaging with you anymore.

I know you said you were not going to engage with me anymore, but I do still feel the need to respond. I want to point out, due to issues in other threads I've had, that I am not demanding you engage with me, nor do I expect a response from you (or anyone). My response is mine alone and I do not care if you respond. It is your choice either way.

That said, you taught me a new word tonight, so thank you (the word elide). I don't think anyone's statements here omit Canada is a sovereign nation, nor that your laws are yours. We are merely stating our opinions on the matter. Our opinions are based on the laws in our country that we agree with, and that is what it is. If you are tired of American's putting their opinions out there, perhaps you should stay away from boards with Americans. We are a very opinionated lot, and we make no apologies for that. You don't have to agree with our opinions, but they are ours and ours alone.

You may not agree with my opinion, but I hold the opinion that private businesses should be allowed to serve whom they choose. If society does not agree with their choices, they have a right to not use said business. In our world that is a very good way to make a business go out of business or move to a part of society that will accept their choices. I now understand that Canada doesn't work like that, which is fine. Canada is allowed to work however its citizens choose to make it work (or whomever makes the laws there). That doesn't change my opinion in any way. If it's against Canada's law, then it should be taken to a court of law and dealt with. That still doesn't change my opinion in any way. So, despite your choices of attacking my comment, it does not change my opinion in any way.

[keeperrox]

You may not agree with my opinion, but I hold the opinion that private businesses should be allowed to serve whom they choose. If society does not agree with their choices, they have a right to not use said business. In our world that is a very good way to make a business go out of business or move to a part of society that will accept their choices. I now understand that Canada doesn't work like that, which is fine. Canada is allowed to work however its citizens choose to make it work (or whomever makes the laws there). That doesn't change my opinion in any way. If it's against Canada's law, then it should be taken to a court of law and dealt with. That still doesn't change my opinion in any way. So, despite your choices of attacking my comment, it does not change my opinion in any way.

This. This is what has been in my brain the whole thread, and I haven't been able to put properly into words.

[Guest Anonymous]

You may not agree with my opinion, but I hold the opinion that private businesses should be allowed to serve whom they choose. If society does not agree with their choices, they have a right to not use said business.

I know that the discussion here has been about legal and cultural differences between the US and Canada, but I genuinely did not realize that this was legal in the US. Is there no civil rights protection for consumers in the US?

[tropaka]

This is a case of competing rights - rights of a person to have access to a service regardless of gender etc, and rights of religion. Maybe if the barbershop's owner would have referred her immediately to another barber/hairdresser that could meet her needs, this wouldn't have gotten to this point (like the pharmacist comparison - pharmacists or docs who won't dispense the morning after pill or do abortions I thought were required to refer people to an appropriate medical professional).

[Coconut Flan]

Not all Americans see it that business owners have a right to serve or not serve any customer. I guarantee I complained when a cashier closed her register rather than handle my purchases. Management of the business took immediate action. There are reasons we have civil rights laws and one of those that is because business owners and workers did not choose to serve all of the public equally.

The laws and system to implement them may vary, but businesses do not have unilateral rights to discriminate in the US either.

[meda]

I know that the discussion here has been about legal and cultural differences between the US and Canada, but I genuinely did not realize that this was legal in the US. Is there no civil rights protection for consumers in the US?

I have read this thread, and it's odd to me that people seem to think that discrimination against protected classes by private business is permissible in the US. I have no idea how thing would play out in this particular case, but much of the early litigation surrounding the 1964 civil rights act was around this very issue. Private businesses do nat as a rule have a right to discriminate against whole classes of people. There is a famous case involving a chain of hotels in the south that refused to rent rooms to blacks. The hotel lost. The impetus of much modern civil rights law in the US has been the rights of minorities to engage in commerce and patronize businesses (including hospitals, restaurants, plumbers, etc) that refused to conduct business with minorities until they were forced to. A large part of the complet disenfranchisement of Blacks during Jim Crow was ecconomic, not just political. It baffles me how the free market types like to pretend that the problem would have been solved by people just allowing the racism to continue and just shop elseware. Where else would someone shop or get services in a town where the businesses were all owned by whites?

[luckystone]

Are religious rights not protected in Canada as equally as gender rights?

When religious rights interfere with the rights of other people or the basic tenets of society they shouldn't be supported IMO. Just because something is religious doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Otherwise you'd have people murdering other people (on the direct instructions of various holy books) and getting away with it :roll:

Sounds like a reasonable complaint to me. If your religion says you can't provide a woman with a completely non-sexual service because she's a woman and touching her will make you think bad things, you probably need to get out of the service industry. I've heard some ridiculous complaints about Muslim businesses (zomg, halal meat is being served, no bacon!!!!), but this isn't one of them.

Is that really ridiculous? I probably wouldn't go to a halal place and complain if it was halal just because it would be a stupid waste of time, but the general consensus is that halal is demonstrably crueller than other slaughter, so some complaints are reasonable.

[Arete]

What meda said^. I don't know where this idea is coming from that in the States you are allowed to discriminate against protected classes of people if you own a business. I am most familiar with restuarants, and you most certainly can NOT say that your religion does not allow you to have contact with the opposite sex and therefore you will not serve women; or that homosexuality is a sin in your religious tradition and you cannot serve openly gay patrons. I know that the all male golf club Augusta National was forced to open it's membership to women after it was taken to court.

I don't know how all female gyms are allowed to operate, but I would not be surprised if it is simply because no one has bothered to put the time/resources into a legal challenge. I really am curious how they do not run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. There are a few old barbershops left in my neck of the woods, and while it is very rare to see women there, it is not unheard of or unseen.

I am pretty sure my cousin's barber would positively cringe if a woman came in and wanted anything more complicated than a blunt or buzz cut. Yeah, he probably would try to tell her he wasn't man enough for the job.

[Minerva]

What meda said^. I don't know where this idea is coming from that in the States you are allowed to discriminate against protected classes of people if you own a business. I am most familiar with restuarants, and you most certainly can NOT say that your religion does not allow you to have contact with the opposite sex and therefore you will not serve women; or that homosexuality is a sin in your religious tradition and you cannot serve openly gay patrons. I know that the all male golf club Augusta National was forced to open it's membership to women after it was taken to court.

I don't know how all female gyms are allowed to operate, but I would not be surprised if it is simply because no one has bothered to put the time/resources into a legal challenge. I really am curious how they do not run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. There are a few old barbershops left in my neck of the woods, and while it is very rare to see women there, it is not unheard of or unseen.

I am pretty sure my cousin's barber would positively cringe if a woman came in and wanted anything more complicated than a blunt or buzz cut. Yeah, he probably would try to tell her he wasn't man enough for the job.

Women being a protected group makes certain all-women's spaces legal, but it's hard to tell whether the law would see a gym that way. There is the issue of women feeling safer, but it's not on par with, say, a women's shelter.

[BlackHawk]

What meda said^. I don't know where this idea is coming from that in the States you are allowed to discriminate against protected classes of people if you own a business. I am most familiar with restuarants, and you most certainly can NOT say that your religion does not allow you to have contact with the opposite sex and therefore you will not serve women; or that homosexuality is a sin in your religious tradition and you cannot serve openly gay patrons. I know that the all male golf club Augusta National was forced to open it's membership to women after it was taken to court.

I don't know how all female gyms are allowed to operate, but I would not be surprised if it is simply because no one has bothered to put the time/resources into a legal challenge. I really am curious how they do not run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. There are a few old barbershops left in my neck of the woods, and while it is very rare to see women there, it is not unheard of or unseen.

I am pretty sure my cousin's barber would positively cringe if a woman came in and wanted anything more complicated than a blunt or buzz cut. Yeah, he probably would try to tell her he wasn't man enough for the job.

Perhaps this is a KY thing then.. cause people here do it all the time. There are several smaller shops The Partner and I do not go to because they refuse us service. I assumed that this was perfectly legal... perhaps it is not and I should look in to that. My understanding was that private businesses can choose who they allow to frequent their establishment because they are private businesses. It's the same as private property (in my understanding) in so much as you can demand someone remove themselves from your property and if they do not then they can be arrested. Is that not true? Public businesses, those directly connected to the gov't, however cannot disallow service for discrimination sake. I guess I need to read up on the law around here.

[Coconut Flan]

No, restaurants, bookstores, clothing stores, etc, can not tell the general public to leave unless they sell by appt or reservation only. If a person is disruptive, stealing, shoplifting or creating a nuisance, the establishment can ask a patron to leave or refuse service.

A business open to the public has to serve the public. This is opposed to a private country club who only has to serve members, but also can't restrict membership based on sex, race, etc.

I've seen hair salons "not have appointments" or time available for clients they don't like. That was based on behavior not race, gender, etc.

Talking to a friend in Louisville. She says shouldn't be a problem there unless it's the Creation Museum.

[BlackHawk]

No, restaurants, bookstores, clothing stores, etc, can not tell the general public to leave unless they sell by appt or reservation only. If a person is disruptive, stealing, shoplifting or creating a nuisance, the establishment can ask a patron to leave or refuse service.

A business open to the public has to serve the public. This is opposed to a private country club who only has to serve members, but also can't restrict membership based on sex, race, etc.

I've seen hair salons "not have appointments" or time available for clients they don't like. That was based on behavior not race, gender, etc.

Talking to a friend in Louisville. She says shouldn't be a problem there unless it's the Creation Museum.

LOL, Louisville is very different from the rest of KY... as someone who grew up there, it's VERY different outside of the big city. There are plenty of places here with a "right to refuse service" plaque.

[meda]

Perhaps this is a KY thing then.. cause people here do it all the time. There are several smaller shops The Partner and I do not go to because they refuse us service. I assumed that this was perfectly legal... perhaps it is not and I should look in to that. My understanding was that private businesses can choose who they allow to frequent their establishment because they are private businesses. It's the same as private property (in my understanding) in so much as you can demand someone remove themselves from your property and if they do not then they can be arrested. Is that not true? Public businesses, those directly connected to the gov't, however cannot disallow service for discrimination sake. I guess I need to read up on the law around here.

BlackHawk under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class. In many states, it is (federal anti discrimination law is a floor not a ceiling) I would suggest looking into KY law to see what your options are. Also, I find it strange that you would find discrimination ok as long as it happens on private property or by a private business. Discrimination or a hate crime as defined by law is illegal no matter where it happens. Why would location makes a difference? Private property rights do not generally trump federal or state law. If property owners are subject to zoning laws, why would they not be subject to anti discrimination laws?

[BlackHawk]

BlackHawk under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class. In many states, it is (federal anti discrimination law is a floor not a ceiling) I would suggest looking into KY law to see what your options are. Also, I find it strange that you would find discrimination ok as long as it happens on private property or by a private business. Discrimination or a hate crime as defined by law is illegal no matter where it happens. Why would location makes a difference? Private property rights do not generally trump federal or state law. If property owners are subject to zoning laws, why would they not be subject to anti discrimination laws?

GLBT is not covered under state law thanks to Gov. Fletcher of a few years ago. That I know for a fact. I guess I never thought of it that way, seriously. So one more thing to think about and figure out where I stand.

[rock_girl]

When religious rights interfere with the rights of other people or the basic tenets of society they shouldn't be supported IMO. Just because something is religious doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Otherwise you'd have people murdering other people (on the direct instructions of various holy books) and getting away with it :roll:

Is that really ridiculous? I probably wouldn't go to a halal place and complain if it was halal just because it would be a stupid waste of time, but the general consensus is that halal is demonstrably crueller than other slaughter, so some complaints are reasonable.

Oh, wow, I just read up on kosher/halal slaughter techniques and was really saddened. For some reason I assumed that religious killing included stunning before the animal's throat was slit. Poor animals. That said, I wouldn't make a complaint about a business serving halal meat on that basis. If it's legal to kill an animal without stunning it for religious reasons then presumably non-religious abattoirs would use the same methods if it proved cost effective. I'd have to complain about every business that used meat from sources that couldn't prove animals were raised and killed humanely.

[JesusFightClub]

I never said you couldn't have your opinion. I did say that it gets tiresome to hear on the internet, repeatedly, Americans opining about things going on in countries with different laws. I never said no one could comment about a country not their own - but I do think people on this thread were talking in a way that seemed to elide the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation with very explicit laws about this kind of thing.

I do actually think gay men should be entitled to safe spaces, but as I said in my original comment, I am not sure if Curves here is women-only, nor do I know how it interacts with our laws.

I am not feeling good about this conversation and I am not engaging with you anymore.

No-one's entitled to safe spaces. They don't exist.

You might as well say "we're entitled to free chocolate polar bears with no heads being fed to us by mouth by Zimbabwean legislators." It's about as likely to happen.

"Safe spaces" is an ID politics concept which, if you think about it, is actively repulsive. A space where no one has a dissenting opinion? A space where you're safe if you believe everything you're told and nod your head submissively?

PS - Elide, that word does not mean what you think it does.

[Arete]

Oh, wow, I just read up on kosher/halal slaughter techniques and was really saddened. For some reason I assumed that religious killing included stunning before the animal's throat was slit. Poor animals. That said, I wouldn't make a complaint about a business serving halal meat on that basis. If it's legal to kill an animal without stunning it for religious reasons then presumably non-religious abattoirs would use the same methods if it proved cost effective. I'd have to complain about every business that used meat from sources that couldn't prove animals were raised and killed humanely.

Not to derail this thread but people who raise meat for their own consumption do not stun it before slaughter, but I would consider their meat far more humanely raised/processed than an abbatoir that stuns. For me personally their is no reason to buy kosher or halal meat unless it is a religious requirement you live by.

[rock_girl]

Not to derail this thread but people who raise meat for their own consumption do not stun it before slaughter, but I would consider their meat far more humanely raised/processed than an abbatoir that stuns. For me personally their is no reason to buy kosher or halal meat unless it is a religious requirement you live by.

It depends really. I buy my meat from a farmer who sends his cows off to the local abattoir. The cows and lambs live good lives and they get quick, clean deaths. If it's the choice between an animal living its life in horrific conditions and being sent for a quick death, or an animal raised humanely and being killed without stunning I'd go for the latter, obviously, although I'd prefer humane living conditions and stunning before slaughter. I wouldn't buy halal meat, but it doesn't bother me to see restaurants serving it, which was the original point. That not wanting to cut a woman's hair because she's a woman is worth complaining about, whereas the articles you see in the gutter press about the wicked restaurants duping customers by serving halal meat are just a bit of hateful nonsense.

[Deleted03]

Wow... You actually made me laugh. Thank you. I am allowed to have an opinion that is different from yours based on ideas that I am used to. So I expect when someone will talk about things going on in their country (notably not the US or Canada since you claim both) that you will refrain from commenting period? We all have ideas on issues based on our country of origin. Not that big a deal really.

As for Curves, sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow everyone to have "safe spaces" based on things like gender, or you allow no one. It's a double standard otherwise. As a gay man, who is a marginalized member of society, can I have a gay man's only club?

Actually there is a lot of controversy about gay men's sauna in Montreal and how the equivalent for women is always denied permit for opening.

I don't like women only clubs, swimming pool or work out places. I think it makes the problem worse, and that respect should be taught to both sides (hey I feel self conscious when all those tiny women are working out). In Canada religious rights versus other rights are a subject of debates, constantly. it's not like we are just against "free" enterprise, we balance rights everyday. and that is one instance of it.

[Deleted03]

This. This is what has been in my brain the whole thread, and I haven't been able to put properly into words.

And the discussion has been around how this did not work for segregation and there is no reason that this would work for other groups of people that are discriminated against.

I am still left wondering why you think this would work when it did not work to protect against racism.

[JeanneD]

I have a soft spot for Canada. I think it's great that they have such explicit anti-discrimination laws. It is also good to see that a country can succeed economically even without pandering to the business sector. That's nice.

[2xx1xy1JD]

No-one's entitled to safe spaces. They don't exist.

You might as well say "we're entitled to free chocolate polar bears with no heads being fed to us by mouth by Zimbabwean legislators." It's about as likely to happen.

"Safe spaces" is an ID politics concept which, if you think about it, is actively repulsive. A space where no one has a dissenting opinion? A space where you're safe if you believe everything you're told and nod your head submissively?

PS - Elide, that word does not mean what you think it does.

I was thinking that Black Hawk might have been referring to physical safe spaces, not metaphorical ones.

Even though I don't think that coed gym are against public decency, I completely understand the demand for women-only gyms. Quite frankly, since I got used to my women-only gym, it was nice to work out without wondering if someone would be leering at me, esp. since I tend to work out late at night.

I can totally see the need for gay-positive gyms as well. It could be physically unsafe otherwise.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My municipality has woman-only swim times at some of its pools:

http://kidsenergyburner.com/swimming_po ... an-ontario

I haven't heard of it being subjected to any human rights complaints. The majority of the time is still coed, there are a number of pools in the city offering public swim times, and so men or families wishing to swim together aren't really being put out. On a practical level, it allows physical participation by a group that would otherwise be less likely to take advantage of municipal fitness facilities, and would therefore be more likely to be socially and physically marginalized. It's used by Muslims, Orthodox Jews and women who simply don't feel comfortable swimming around men.

I'm wondering if this would be saved under section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which states:

Subsection [15(1)] (which guarantees equality) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[JesusFightClub]

That's not weird (women only swim times) but it is only a safe space if you make two assumptions about women - a. they are not often attracted towards other women and b. if they are they will never behave inappropriately.