dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2747
share rss forum feed

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

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

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.


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

said by NCRGuy:

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

Unless you can define how his opinion is bigotry beyond the simple fact that he's rightfully critical of some of the more asinine aspects of religious belief, you're grasping at straws yourself by claiming it as such.

Sure, his opinion may be wrong on this matter, but it doesn't make his position any more bigotry than the barber who refused to serve a woman is a bigot against women - though, I'm sure there are people who would think he *is* a bigot - yay circular arguments!


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

said by analog andy:

So your religion says no serving black people?

... if you were a Mormon 40 years ago...


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men's cut.

Maybe it was really Cissy Meldrum from "You Rang M'Lord?"!



--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

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

said by analog andy:

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.

If there's no pork on the menu then there's no pork.
But in the barber's case haircuts ARE on the menu - in fact they're pretty much the ONLY thing on the menu.

-----------------------------

This situation reminds me of a song by the not so well-known great Texan, Kinky Friedman

We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to You

While traveling through the lone star state
I lost my lunch before I ate,
It happened in a pull-ahead café. yahoo!
I felt my bones begin to crunch
I saw my name on the businessman's lunch [haircut]
And the neck who owned the place stepped up to say:
"Hey buddy, are you blind,
Say, partner, can't you read the sign ?"

We reserve the right to refuse service to you,
Take your business back to Walgreen's,
Have you tried your local zoo?
You smell just like a communist, [unclean]
You come on through just like a Jew, [woman]
We reserve the right to refuse service to you.

[substitution appropriate to the barber situation]


Styvas
Go Canucks Go
Premium
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON
reply to Grappler

I feel really torn on this, although I think I'm ultimately on the side of the barber shop.

Religion is ultimately a choice. At the very least, one's level of adherence to it is a choice, even if you feel that which religion you belong to is not a choice. In the absence of a theocracy ruled by your particular religion, there is always going to be a balancing of rights.

If my level of adherence to my religion is one that dictates I refrain from everyday types of activities, then I have to recognize that I'm going to be somewhat limited in my choice of activities, career, etc. That's the sacrifice that I have to make as a faithful adherent to my religion.

So, for lack of a better example, if my religion says that visible minorities are "unclean," then it's likely that I'm going to have to avoid jobs that require human contact. If my religion says that reptiles are unclean, then my choice of vocation is much less limited (probably just avoiding zoos and pet stores, for the most part).

If, as in the case of the barbers being discussed here, touching a woman is considered immoral, then it makes sense that I would work in a business that caters to men. Because this is Canada and not Saudi Arabia, there is the possibility that a woman might come to my shop. Any reasonable woman would recognize that her being there is a bit unorthodox and, when I explain why I can't help her, she'd respectfully leave and go to one of the dozens of other barbers in the area who aren't Muslim (let's be honest, barber shops are a dime a dozen in just about every community).

But the woman involved in this situation seemed to have a chip on her shoulder and refused to be reasonable. Based on the information we have available to evaluate this case, that's why I'm on the side of the barbershops.
--
"Moving your Tylenol to the low shelf in your medicine cabinet is not the way to prevent children from falling off a stool when reaching for the top shelf." (said by Savant, May 2008)



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by camelot:

However that is not what the Charter says. The Charter does not say "You are free to practice "in your own home" but no where else."

The Income Tax Act gives recognized fairy tale religious believers a MORE than generous way of funding and having Neverland places of worship on backs of those who don't contribute to such endeavours. That strikes me as a more than fair 'bargain' (tradeoff of competing rights).

That is simply not true. You don't have much understanding of the tax codes which apply to religious groups.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Grappler

said by Grappler:

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.

Perhaps a more realistic situation is man presenting in the ER are requesting a woman physician for their wife. They are Muslim. There is no woman physician available. The person leaves.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


corster
Premium
join:2002-02-23
Gatineau, QC
reply to Grappler

The tribunal should just tell her to go find another barber shop. Unfortunately, they will probably side with her.



Last Parade

join:2002-10-07
Port Colborne, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to DKS

said by DKS:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by camelot:

However that is not what the Charter says. The Charter does not say "You are free to practice "in your own home" but no where else."

The Income Tax Act gives recognized fairy tale religious believers a MORE than generous way of funding and having Neverland places of worship on backs of those who don't contribute to such endeavours. That strikes me as a more than fair 'bargain' (tradeoff of competing rights).

That is simply not true. You don't have much understanding of the tax codes which apply to religious groups.

I thought churches don't pay property taxes? Sales taxes in some provinces?


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Styvas

said by Styvas:

But the woman involved in this situation seemed to have a chip on her shoulder and refused to be reasonable.

The same could be said of Rosa Parks. By any rational standard she was being entirely "unreasonable."

The difference between what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" changes as our values change, and people who are pilloried for being unreasonable jerks are sometimes later seen as having been catalysts for important change.

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

said by Last Parade:

I thought churches don't pay property taxes? Sales taxes in some provinces?

You and I, if we are fined by a court and have to sell say 1000 shares of Apple stock today to pay the fine, and our ACB is $8/share -- well we first have to pay our capital gains tax on the stock sale price (today $525/share) less $8 and then pay the fine. Which makes it necessary to sell more stock than is required to simply pay the fine.

On the other hand, a religious body doesn't pay capital gains tax when they sell off assets which have greatly appreciated over the years in order to pay damages in pedophilia cases.

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

said by analog andy:

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 don't think atheism promotes that.
But certain belief systems did (KKK) and may still hold that view.

I have many friends of many religious faiths who all believe that the barber is wrong in this situation because he is in a customer-facing public service job.

Let's take it a step further.....say a person believed that they should not talk to unrelated women and that person had a job at a tech support call-centre and refused to speak with women on religious grounds. What would happen? More than likely the person would be fired for cause.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Last Parade:

I thought churches don't pay property taxes? Sales taxes in some provinces?

You and I, if we are fined by a court and have to sell say 1000 shares of Apple stock today to pay the fine, and our ACB is $8/share -- well we first have to pay our capital gains tax on the stock sale price (today $525/share) less $8 and then pay the fine. Which makes it necessary to sell more stock than is required to simply pay the fine.

On the other hand, a religious body doesn't pay capital gains tax when they sell off assets which have greatly appreciated over the years in order to pay damages in pedophilia cases.

That presumes the religious body owns shares in any company at all.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Last Parade

said by Last Parade:

I thought churches don't pay property taxes? Sales taxes in some provinces?

Only on spaces for public worship. They are assessed, however. Otherwise, yes. And yes, churches pay all sales taxes but can request (if they have the BN from the CRA) a rebate.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

The same could be said of Rosa Parks. By any rational standard she was being entirely "unreasonable."

The difference between what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" changes as our values change, and people who are pilloried for being unreasonable jerks are sometimes later seen as having been catalysts for important change.

Black people were subject to harm by not being able to ride the bus. There was no competing bus line. Other choices (walking, taxi, staying home) were much less useful. So they either had to protest or to accept humiliation in the back of the bus.

This woman is not being subjected to very much harm. She has lots of other places to get her hair cut. And even aside from that, if she has a little delay in getting a haircut, that is far less of an issue than not being able to travel.

I'm not a supporter of the Moslem religion, but I side with the barbershop.

It would be DIFFERENT if the shop was willing to serve women of one race but not another, or willing to serve straight women but not gay women.

But if they don't want to touch ANY women, and if that is a basic and sincere part of their religion (which it is) then it should be accepted.

Again, a DIFFERENT situation would be if a pharmacist (licensed as such by province or state) refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because he doesn't believe in their use. (In that regard, keep in mind that this issue has arisen in small towns, and there the women were indeed inconvenienced by having to travel elsewhere. Also, these pills are often prescribed for medical issues other than contraception).

So a pharmacist should not be allowed to impose his beliefs, while a barber can, because the right to medication prescribed by your doctor is much more fundamental than the right to a haircut.


Markie
Still Living Free

join:2009-07-11
Canada
reply to Grappler

This lady is no Rosa Parks, lmao.

So what about a Muslim Dr., isn't he obligated to touch a woman in need of immediate medical attention?
--
»libertarian.on.ca/



fun fun

@videotron.ca
reply to DKS

in this article,»www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Toron···751.aspx, the Ontario Human Rights says:

If the Tribunal finds that the barber shop violated McGregor's rights, it could order a monetary settlement or order the shop to implement a set of “public remedies,” such as ordering the shop to offer services “in a way that is considered non-discriminatory.” That may involve hiring additional staff, for example, she says.

heh. All they will do is force the closure of a business as these guys stated they will leave and work at something else if forced. And a monetary settlement won't work. Each and every woman could walk in off the street yell discrimination and get a financial settlement in perpetuity as long as they remain in business which would drive them to bankruptcy.

And if they force them to hire someone else to take an appointment on certain days pf the week or month to accommodate a single woman, who is going to burden the costs of that additional labour and over-head? It would have to be the woman demanding it. So then we have a situation of a mans haircut being 20$ and a womans haircut being 80$ for the exact same thing. Then we start the discrimination all over again due to price

I would also require a deposit to pay the extra help should the woman not show up. Otherwise they are taking business/financial risks for no reason.

And if the barber hits hard times it's kind of hard to justify being forced to have additional labour for one woman. Doesn't make sense.

But this is the law of the land. No business can (or is not supposed to) refuse service based on gender.

I think they should hire a blind barber with a seeing eye dog so they can complain dogs are against their religion

The way I see it, these guys are screwed no matter what.



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to PX Eliezer7

But that's not an accurate description of the Rosa Parks event. It wasn't about giving up transportation, it was about giving up her seat and standing.

Today we see it as a turning point in desegregation, but from the perspective of the time, it was just a woman being unreasonable. The whole issue of race relations has been changed by actions like that, otherwise we would just continue to believe it was the natural order of things.

The point that can be argued here is whether a person of exclusionary beliefs should be in a particular service business where those beliefs result in discrimination -- racial, gender, whatever. The answer is often "it depends", but the major thing it depends on is the social norms of the day. Sometimes we need to shift those norms a little.

We've had similar discussions about lunatic taxi drivers refusing to accommodate sight-impaired people with guide dogs, because their religion teaches that dogs are "unclean." I need make no further comment on that, but if I did it would consist of short words of mostly four letters.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


analog andy

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

Women don't want to be looked and drooled at when at a fitness club so they join women's only clubs.

This man has a men's only barber shop because he doesn't want to be put into a situation which will conflict with his religious believes

Same thing to me.


NCRGuy

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

said by Markie:

This lady is no Rosa Parks, lmao.

So what about a Muslim Dr., isn't he obligated to touch a woman in need of immediate medical attention?

It is highly unlikely a very observant Muslim would be a doctor, unless he specialized in an area of men's health.