dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2742
share rss forum feed


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: GTA is Full of Them - Another "My Rights Are More Impor

This is like the story a while ago that some muslim cabbies would not take a passenger with a dog (no matter how small or large) because in their religion dogs are "unclean".

There's a reason that most of the muslim world is in the shape its in and the people are generally laughed at...



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Grappler

I'm not seeing a problem with the situation here. She has a right. He has a right. The two rights are mutually exclusive. How to decide which one takes primacy? The tribunal must decide. I'm not sure what else could be expected in this situation, even if I feel that one side is claiming an unreasonable right. It's not up to me to decide, that's not how it works.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


camelot

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Guspaz:

I'm not seeing a problem with the situation here. She has a right. He has a right. The two rights are mutually exclusive. How to decide which one takes primacy? The tribunal must decide. I'm not sure what else could be expected in this situation, even if I feel that one side is claiming an unreasonable right. It's not up to me to decide, that's not how it works.

The problem, is that the Tribunal (an unelected body) has a tendency to make ridiculous decisions based on fairness, not law or fact (since they're not lawyers).

Being that, they set precedence which will be used by every other group looking to trump someone else's rights.

In my mind, this can potentially be much bigger than the Tribunal's mandate, and start extending to the Supreme Court.


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

You want to believe & practice that stuff, fine, go ahead. Just do it in the confines of your own home or place of worship. When dealing with the public in a secular society, I don't care which stripe of fairy tale you want to believe in, just stick your religious beliefs where the sun don't shine and serve ALL the public or get your business license revoked.

Really? So I should have the right to force a Kosher butcher to serve me pig bacon?

quote:
Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing.
This woman needs to understand that others have rights too. He wasn't discriminating based on gender, he was following an extablished religious rule.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

»shaner38.blogspot.com/


agtle

@teksavvy.com
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by camelot:

said by MaynardKrebs:

and not foist that on the rest of the public.

So don't patron his business. Problem solved.

So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?

What if the person who wanted that good/service was a disabled woman with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair ?

Is the store owner within their religious rights to say:
a) I don't cut women's hair
b) I don't cut cripple's hair
c) I don't do wheelchairs
d) Some combination of the above?

I think the point trying to be made is where is the line drawn? It could be a slippery slope. Let's say the HRT says it is OK to deny service to women. Next someone uses that precedent to deny service based on skin colour, age, perceived sexual orientation... at what point does it become "unacceptable"?

I would tend to agree with the point Mr Krebs is trying to make, which I think is that we can't allow one freedom to be used a shield to infringe upon another person's freedoms.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Grappler

There is one simple solution neither party seems to have considered.

Whenever Mrs. Bad-hair-day comes in Mr. Barber should offer $20 to the first person to walk by his shop willing to hold clippers for 20 minutes and go to work on Mrs. Bad-hair-day's hairdo.

That way she can get the haircut she deserves, and he doesn't have to touch her. Plus some hobo makes $20. Everybody wins!

Hell, if I lived closer I'd volunteer to be the special barber brought-in just for her.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to shaner

said by shaner:

Really? So I should have the right to force a Kosher butcher to serve me pig bacon?

quote:Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing.

This woman needs to understand that others have rights too. He wasn't discriminating based on gender, he was following an extablished religious rule.

A kosher or halal butcher won't typically have pork products in-stock, and normally doesn't deal with suppliers that do. However, if his/hers was the only butcher shop in-town and 50% of his clients had expressed an interest in having pork, then the kosher/halal butcher would - if they were smart - have a separate area to store/process pork products for their customers. At least there's no prohibition in Jewish religious laws for that as far as I know - only in regards to consumption of pork *by* Jews.

As to the 'religious practice', by the same religious logic a Muslim doctor could -- and would -- refuse to treat a woman not of his family bleeding out right in front of him. At that point it becomes criminal - Charter or not.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by MaynardKrebs:

As to the 'religious practice', by the same religious logic a Muslim doctor could -- and would -- refuse to treat a woman not of his family bleeding out right in front of him. At that point it becomes criminal - Charter or not.

Hah, good point. I'm pretty damn sure that there are muslim doctors practicing in this country, and somehow I doubt they would not touch a woman non family member for the purpose of examination or help.
--



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

A kosher or halal butcher won't typically have pork products in-stock, and normally doesn't deal with suppliers that do. However, if his/hers was the only butcher shop in-town and 50% of his clients had expressed an interest in having pork, then the kosher/halal butcher would - if they were smart - have a separate area to store/process pork products for their customers. At least there's no prohibition in Jewish religious laws for that as far as I know - only in regards to consumption of pork *by* Jews.

I had a rather insightful discussion with a good Muslim friend of mine on this very topic. He said there was no specific provision preventing them from selling, handling or slaughtering items considered haraam. He said you would wash your hands and say a prayer after handling and he said all should be good, the only thing he added was that as a devout Muslim he would probably never put himself into a position to have to do that unless absolutely necessary.

Jewish dietary laws, from what I gather, are a lot more complicated than that of Islam. It might not be as simple as that for a Jew to be in the same situation as above.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

said by Gone:

he added was that as a devout Muslim he would probably never put himself into a position to have to do that unless absolutely necessary.

The other stuff you wrote would be debatable in a forum on Islamic practice as there are different thoughts on that but what you wrote right here is bang-on. It's possible you can even extend that to this situation with the expectation that a barber would never be asked to cut a woman's hair like a man.

If you suggested that there'd be a situation like this 20 years ago, probably the last time I went to someone classified as a traditional barber, a man who cuts and shaves the hair of men, I'd say you were crazy. "Why would a woman want her hair cut like a man!?"

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Jewish dietary laws, from what I gather, are a lot more complicated than that of Islam. It might not be as simple as that for a Jew to be in the same situation as above.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison···ary_laws

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to urbanriot

said by urbanriot:

If you suggested that there'd be a situation like this 20 years ago, probably the last time I went to someone classified as a traditional barber, a man who cuts and shaves the hair of men, I'd say you were crazy. "Why would a woman want her hair cut like a man!?"

But should she be denied the haircut?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to urbanriot

said by urbanriot:

The other stuff you wrote would be debatable in a forum on Islamic practice as there are different thoughts on that but what you wrote right here is bang-on. It's possible you can even extend that to this situation with the expectation that a barber would never be asked to cut a woman's hair like a man.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that while he may have a reasonable expectation never to cut a woman's hair, it is just as reasonable to believe that he may find himself in the odd rare situation where he would need to cut a woman's hair, and at that point he needs to reconcile his faith versus the profession he engages in while living in a country as diverse as Canada.

I'm not about to go questioning this man's faith or this woman's motives behind her complaint, but I think this whole situation is a lot of hot air over nothing. I don't see this as a gender equality versus religious rights debate. I see this as a business person who doesn't want to do business with someone. End of story. If he would have kept his mouth shut and not given her a reason why he didn't want to cut her hair, or lied and said he didn't feel comfortable cutting women's hair due to lack of experience, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

But should she be denied the haircut?

If a customer walks into my store and wants something I am unable or unwilling to provide for whatever reason, do I not have the right to say no?

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by Gone:

said by MaynardKrebs:

But should she be denied the haircut?

If a customer walks into my store and wants something I am unable to provide for whatever reason, do I not have the right to say no?

He had the barber chair, scissors & comb.
He wasn't out of stock in anything required except basic human decency.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by MaynardKrebs:

He had the barber chair, scissors & comb.
He wasn't out of stock in anything required except basic human decency.

Wrong. I have had numerous customers with bad attitudes walk into my store that I simply do not want to deal with and will make up any excuse to try and get them to leave as quickly as possible.

Are you trying to tell me I broke the law by refusing to do business with those people? Please.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to MaynardKrebs

The barber shop offered up a barber who would do it.

She's just trying to make a stand thinking her rights are more important than the barber's rights. The barber came up with a workable solution and that's that.

Our Charter of Rights, regardless of certain people's opinion's on religion does not say gender is more important than religion, they are equal. So if buddy doesn't want to take money from a woman to cut her hair because his religion says he can't, but offers her another solution, isn't he doing the right thing by everyone?

When I look at business, if someone doesn't want to sell me something, they don't have to. If they don't want my money, I'm not going to give it to them.

The Star seems to be full of these "I'm more important than anyone else stories" lately.


analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to MaynardKrebs

I don't see a problem here. As much as I hate religions he has a right to practice his religion and not do something that he is forbidden to do by his religion unless is a matter of public safety or real discrimination against someone else. He offered her a solution, she refused, end of story.

So when she walks into the next store and asks to be service only by the owner, and the owner is not available to service her will she also take them to the tribunal because she didn't want to be services by another employee?

If you don't like it don't shop there.


Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to peterboro

said by peterboro:

said by Grappler:

I am sure a simple test can be designed to weed out these cases in advance and force the payment for costs in advance.

When a complaint is received by the HRTO registrar there is a litmus test to see if the complaint fulfills all the perquisite criteria before it proceeds to the adjudication process.

Thanks for that tidbit.

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to DKS

said by DKS:

said by Grappler:

Attached Link refers:

There are more important discrimination issues than a haircut, which in this case I support the barber, IMHO his rights are more important in this matter.

Wrong. It is a case of competing rights. There no such thing as a hierarchy of rights, but a situation where a resolution between equal rights must be found. The best place for that (and a cheaper place) is the HR Tribunal, as opposed to everyone hiring a lawyer and taking valuable court time. One solution has already been proposed in this case. There may be others.

Not wrong, I am aware that legally there is no hierarchy of rights. Hence why I emphasized IMHO, his right is more important. Like others have mentioned, a solution was put already put forth, there are other barbers, etc. This should not even be looked at.

Some mention was made of Muslim Doctors, Emergency personnel etc. Checking with a friend of the Muslim faith I was advised that would not be an issue, their faith is also one of compassion, saving of life etc. and that Muslims in those types of professions would be "forgiven" as their primary doctrine would be to assist and provide aid, etc.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to Grappler

I suppose if you look at it from a reasonableness point of view, she had other options - he, if he wanted to follow his faith, did not.

Personally, I don't agree with his stance, and he should just give her the haircut - but if I were asked to decide this case, I'd have to set m personal opinion aside and side with the barber.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Grappler

said by Grappler:

said by peterboro:

said by Grappler:

I am sure a simple test can be designed to weed out these cases in advance and force the payment for costs in advance.

When a complaint is received by the HRTO registrar there is a litmus test to see if the complaint fulfills all the perquisite criteria before it proceeds to the adjudication process.

Thanks for that tidbit.

1) The owner/barber opened an establishment to serve the public.
2) The barber refused to serve a member of the public because she's a woman.
3) Had the owner placed a sign in the window saying, "Jews, Blacks, Women & Dogs not served here" {does this not ring a bell for anyone here?}, he'd be in violation of the law on many fronts.
4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.

HRTO is the appropriate venue for her to bring her case.
The barber is open to bringing a case against her if he so desires - stating that she's targeting him based on his religion.
I like her chances a LOT better.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to markf

said by markf:

The barber shop offered up a barber who would do it.

And it is for this reason that not only should this case be summarily dismissed, but she should also be forced to pay any and all legal expenses to the owner for being dragged into this mess.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.

He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair.

Case dismissed.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to HeadSpinning

said by HeadSpinning:

I suppose if you look at it from a reasonableness point of view, she had other options - he, if he wanted to follow his faith, did not.

Personally, I don't agree with his stance, and he should just give her the haircut - but if I were asked to decide this case, I'd have to set m personal opinion aside and side with the barber.

He shouldn't be in the business of providing haircuts to people. I believe that as part of the barber 'college' license requirement is that one is able to perform at least basic haircuts on both sexes.

His position is like that of a Jehovah's Witness - who don't believe in blood transfusions - who gets a job at a blood bank or as a nurse/tech in a hospital and refused to set-up a transfusion for a patient, and then screamed that their religious rights were being trampled upon be being asked to do their job.

He should be driving a forklift in a warehouse or some such career if being in contact with unrelated women is so abhorrent to him. I wonder what happens when he rides the subway at rush hour next to unrelated women? If his god can forgive him touching 'strange' women then, then surely his god can forgive him doing his chosen job and serving women.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by MaynardKrebs:

4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.

He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair.

Case dismissed.

From the Star article...

"Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut.

Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing."

No 'solution' was offered until August.

So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by shaner:

Really? So I should have the right to force a Kosher butcher to serve me pig bacon?

quote:Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing.

This woman needs to understand that others have rights too. He wasn't discriminating based on gender, he was following an extablished religious rule.

A kosher or halal butcher won't typically have pork products in-stock, and normally doesn't deal with suppliers that do. However, if his/hers was the only butcher shop in-town and 50% of his clients had expressed an interest in having pork, then the kosher/halal butcher would - if they were smart - have a separate area to store/process pork products for their customers. At least there's no prohibition in Jewish religious laws for that as far as I know - only in regards to consumption of pork *by* Jews.

As to the 'religious practice', by the same religious logic a Muslim doctor could -- and would -- refuse to treat a woman not of his family bleeding out right in front of him. At that point it becomes criminal - Charter or not.

I'm not really sure I get your point. If a kosher butcher doesn't provide pork, and people want pork, they'll go somewhere else. If there isn't somewhere else, tough shit. It's his business and he'll sell what he wants to. If there is somewhere else, it may or may not affect his business, and he may or may not choose to adapt his business (if possible -- having kosher and non-kosher meat produced on the same premises is not impossible, but I does cause headaches that would be beyond the scope of a small business to deal with).

What that has to do with haircuts, I don't know. She wanted something that he was not physically able to provide due to the constraints of his religion. If she wanted to buy something from him, no problem. But he can't touch her. And his right not to do so is legally protected.

As for your equation of giving a haircut to watching someone die, you continue to show how out of touch you are. That's one of the worst straw men I've ever seen.

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Gone:

said by MaynardKrebs:

4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.

He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair.

Case dismissed.

From the Star article...

"Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut.

Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing."

No 'solution' was offered until August.

So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?

No, because like your posts, your refusal is rooted in bigotry. His refusal was rooted in his constitutionally protected religious beliefs.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Gone:

said by MaynardKrebs:

4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.

He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair.

Case dismissed.

From the Star article...

"Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut.

Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing."

No 'solution' was offered until August.

So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?

Beyond all this, gender based discrimination is allowed (see women's gyms, spas, etc.) or at least allowed when it is against men. It may have taken a while to get a solution, but he did. Maybe his next hire was in August and he specifically hired someone who could cut women's hair like men's. Whatever it was, he came up with a solution, she's just one of those who thinks her rights are more important than anyone else's. She should have to pay all the taxpayer costs back because this is a waste of taxpayer resources when there are certainly more pressing issues than "I wanted a haircut at a man's barbershop".

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

1 recommendation

reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?

So your religion says no serving black people?

I walk into a Muslim restaurant and ask for Pork based lunch. They say they don't serve pork. I'm like ok I'll have this instead or go somewhere else. Problem solved and I don't need 15 min of fame on the local news trying to destroy someone life over petty ass shit.